hedomuzzy
Member
By grapthar's hammer, by the suns of worvan, you shall be avenged" ...
Posts: 31
|
Post by hedomuzzy on Apr 14, 2005 9:47:24 GMT -6
Pharmacists around the country are refusing to fill certain prescriptions based on "religious and moral freedoms." Excellent article here: slate.com/id/2116688/What's next? Refusing to stock condoms for the same reason? Vaseline can used for immoral uses as well. And of course the Hitachi Magic Wand needs to be pulled off the shelf ASAP. Is this an example of good "conservative" values?
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Apr 14, 2005 9:54:10 GMT -6
Wait until the drug stores find out how they use the shaving cream at Hedo.
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Apr 14, 2005 10:18:08 GMT -6
I totally disagree with what those Pharmacists are doing. Fill the prescription or have your license suspend or be fined or something. What I would like to know is why is this happening all at once, or has it been happening and just making the news now. Joe
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Apr 14, 2005 10:24:32 GMT -6
I recall that there was a case of this back around the first of the year, the guy was sued by a single woman who had a perscription for birth control pills... the guy refused to fill it AND refused to give back the script.
Maybe he got off with a light sentence and that was the signal to others to try it. The American Taliban are at it again, dontcha love a Theocracy!
|
|
|
Post by That English Guy on Apr 14, 2005 11:09:02 GMT -6
I saw an article about this the other day. This particular story struck me : news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4425603.stmSeems like some of these people need a firm reminder that they are not there to make judgements about others based on their own morality. Simon
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Apr 14, 2005 11:10:37 GMT -6
This sounds like an employer/employee issue to me. Can their ass and hire someone who will do the job.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Apr 14, 2005 12:25:09 GMT -6
Can I be hearing you people correctly? You think that the government should step in and tell a business what they have to sell? Ye Gods, if you think something is immoral, you shouldn't have to stock it or sell it or deal with it at all! As long as it is legal and there is a market for it, SOMEBODY will sell it.......Jake
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Apr 14, 2005 13:11:18 GMT -6
Can I be hearing you people correctly? You think that the government should step in and tell a business what they have to sell? Ye Gods, if you think something is immoral, you shouldn't have to stock it or sell it or deal with it at all! As long as it is legal and there is a market for it, SOMEBODY will sell it.......Jake The question is (and I dont know the answer in these cases) is the pharmasist acting on the policies of the owners of the store, or acting without the store's permission. If the pharmasist has a problem dispensing a legal drug which has been perscribed by a doctor, who is he to override the doctors decision. Also, if a pharmasist refuses to return a script so the individual cannot have that perscription by anyone, has that individuals rights been violated, its akin to theft. IF the store has the item in stock (say condoms), AND he refuses to sell it, then its wrong. If the store, as a matter of policy doesnt STOCK something, thats a different matter. Stocking something and refusing to sell it is a form of discrimination (no different than a store employee in the 1950's refusing to sell anything to someone who is of a different race), in this case DEFINING what factor is being discriminated against is difficult to define. How is it different than if a cashier had a problem with cigarettes that are behind the cash register and refuses to sell them to someone who is of legal age, are they wrong? Mormons have a rule against caffeine, should a person of Mormon faith refuses to sell you a Coke because it contains caffine, within their rights to do so? A pharmasist is a professional position that requires many years of education. If that person has an issue dispensing a legal substance for PERSONAL reason, maybe they should rethink their career choice, and be held legally liable for the violations of the rights of others.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Apr 14, 2005 13:39:31 GMT -6
I agree with most of your post, Gordon. If an owner of a store decides to stock and sell an item, and an employee refuses, then that employee should be fired. And they should certainly not confiscate someone's prescription.
If the owner decides it violates his beliefs to stock and sell an item, he shouldn't have to.
But in either case, nobody is violating anyone's rights by not selling an item, no matter if they are an employee or an owner. They aren't PREVENTING you from getting the item, they are just not selling it to you themselves. You can always saunter down the street to another store with less scruples and more business sense......Jake
|
|
|
Post by That English Guy on Apr 14, 2005 13:51:26 GMT -6
This would be a non-issue in the UK where to practise as a pharmacist you must be registered with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Acceptance by the society means agreeing to a code of ethics, one of which is to put patients' wellbeing first and foremost, and ahead of your own beliefs. Whether a store owner or employee, refusing to dispense a prescribed drug would result in the pharmacist being called before a disciplinary committee who would consider whether they and the store are suitable to remain on the register.
Simon
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Apr 14, 2005 14:09:41 GMT -6
I never have a problem when trying to purchase condoms. The minute a pharmacist gets a look at me, he generally agrees that someone with my unique DNA offerings should not be reproducing. Matter of fact, on one occasion, I had a pharmacist offer to buy the rubbers for me. But that's a topic for another thread, lest I be guilty of yet another drift ...
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Apr 14, 2005 14:11:25 GMT -6
This would be a non-issue in the UK where to practise as a pharmacist you must be registered with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Acceptance by the society means agreeing to a code of ethics, one of which is to put patients' wellbeing first and foremost, and ahead of your own beliefs. Whether a store owner or employee, refusing to dispense a prescribed drug would result in the pharmacist being called before a disciplinary committee who would consider whether they and the store are suitable to remain on the register. Simon This might very well be the case here where the pharmacists are licensed by the State of Texas, but seriously this sounds like something that the free market would take care of. The first complaint that a drug store manager got from a customer that the pharmacist had some personal compunctions about dispensing a certain prescription would probably result in a warning for the pharmacist and an apology to the customer. If it happened again, the pharmacist would be looking for a job. (and who would hire him?)
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Apr 14, 2005 17:46:43 GMT -6
The question is (and I dont know the answer in these cases) is the pharmacist acting on the policies of the owners of the store, or acting without the store's permission. . If it was happening out here I would say the Pharmacist would be acting on his own. 99.9999% of the Pharmacies out here are chain store Pharmacies, Safeway, Alberstons, Rite Aid, Longs. The mom and pop Pharmacy is a thing of the past here. I don't think any of the chain store Pharmacies would have any policy about refusing to fill a prescription base on moral value. Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Apr 14, 2005 17:55:54 GMT -6
Bukkaboy:
"I never have a problem when trying to purchase condoms. The minute a pharmacist gets a look at me, he generally agrees that someone with my unique DNA offerings should not be reproducing. Matter of fact, on one occasion, I had a pharmacist offer to buy the rubbers for me. But that's a topic for another thread, lest I be guilty of yet another drift ..."
No doubt someone would offer to pay for your condums so you don't reproduce. You are one sick mother f....r
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Apr 14, 2005 19:57:06 GMT -6
Uhm......
Terri Shiavo should DIE and I will not treat her.
Am I wrong?
........Bob
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Apr 15, 2005 6:40:14 GMT -6
From "The Devils Dictionary" a satirical source book from the '70s...
EVANGELIST, n. A bearer of good tidings, particularly (in a religious sense) such as assure us of our own salvation and the damnation of our neighbors.
ETHNOLOGY, n. The science that treats of the various tribes of Man, as robbers, thieves, swindlers, dunces, lunatics, idiots and ethnologists.
POLITICIAN, n. An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When he wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.
PRAY, n. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.
RUBBISH, n. Worthless matter, such as the religions, philosophies, literatures, arts and sciences of the tribes infesting the regions lying due south from Boreaplas.
SELF-ESTEEM, n. An erroneous appraisement.
SELF-EVIDENT, adj. Evident to one's self and to nobody else.
SENATE, n. A body of elderly gentlemen charged with high duties and misdemeanors.
TRUCE,n. Friendship.
TURKEY, n. A large bird whose flesh when eaten on certain religious anniversaries has the peculiar property of attesting piety and gratitude. Incidentally, it is pretty good eating.
WORSHIP, n. Homo Creator's testimony to the sound construction and fine finish of Deus Creatus. A popular form of abjection, having an element of pride.
ME, pro. The objectionable case of I. The personal pronoun in English has three cases, the dominative, the objectionable and the oppressive. Each is all three.
MONDAY, n. In Christian countries, the day after the baseball game.
MORAL, adj. Conforming to a local and mutable standard of right. Having the quality of general expediency.
MYTHOLOGY, n. The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished from the true accounts which it invents later.
|
|
|
Post by DT on Apr 15, 2005 8:13:37 GMT -6
Bukkaboy: "I never have a problem when trying to purchase condoms. The minute a pharmacist gets a look at me, he generally agrees that someone with my unique DNA offerings should not be reproducing. Matter of fact, on one occasion, I had a pharmacist offer to buy the rubbers for me. But that's a topic for another thread, lest I be guilty of yet another drift ..." No doubt someone would offer to pay for your condums so you don't reproduce. You are one sick mother f....r Bukkake Boy, let me answer this one. Guest........THANK YOU
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Apr 15, 2005 9:10:21 GMT -6
Bukkaboy: ... No doubt someone would offer to pay for your condums so you don't reproduce. You are one sick mother f....r "Bukkaboy" responds: Sick? Perhaps. But if we are a product of our environment, then I submit to YOU, Guest-Guest, that we are all sick. In the future, please leave your pychotic ramblings on the north side of the Canadian border.
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Apr 15, 2005 9:14:01 GMT -6
Bukkake Boy, let me answer this one. Much obliged, DT. BTW, I've got some unopened spam that similarly needs replies. May I forward them to you? Ooh, look! This one's got a very special looking attachment!
|
|
|
Post by Irish Eyes on Apr 15, 2005 19:03:48 GMT -6
Another 'drive-by' (I liked that Jake!) This brings to mind what happened to the availability of a safe and legal abortion. The religious nut-jobs have made it virtually unattainable in many areas through their intimidation of not only the women exercising their constitutional right, but of the providers, the landlords of the providers, the staff of the providers, the other patients of the providers, the family of the providers, ad nauseum. Yup, it started with a FEW nuts, but spread like wildfire through 'family values' and proliferation of pictures of cute little fetuses (feti?) . But where are these people when the cute feti become irritating children with actual needs? And now they want to get in the way of preventing feti from happening? I think they just don't want people to have sex! Jake, like you, I am all about smaller government, but when a constituional right can be virtually nullified by the concerted efforts of a vocal and active group who wants to impose their ?morals? on the rest of us, the government sometimes has to step in . I think that was once one of the purposes of the government, to protect the rights of the people and enforce the laws the people (via the government) saw fit to enact. I don't know the fed or state laws on this, but something like what Samsi mentioned sounds right to me. I think it should be part and parcel of the job, and not a pharmacist's place to second guess a decision that a person and their doctor came to. Beware the slippery slope!!! It lives! I am curious about where they hope to go with this. No birth control, no abortion??? What in Sam Hill are we supposed to do with the 10 - 15 children per woman that will be born? Even your normal red-state God-fearing hard working family would be hard-pressed to support, financially or otherwise, a family of this size, nevermind your no'count welfare mothers who routinely have families of this size for the windfall of an increased welfare check! I don't know about you guys, but here in NJ (new motto "The Cheap Gasoline State"), school tax makes up a huge amount of our property taxes. Must throw a bit of liberal spin in here for the entertainment and sparring opportunities of the overwhelming conservative (oops! sorry! you guys aren't conservatives, only republicans! Hard to tell the difference in our government lately). YOU guys voted in a religious nut-job who values the sanctity of life over the depravity of personal preference. YOU guys voted in a guy who believes in smaller government, except when it provides a photo opp with a mother of an breathing organic being with a hollow skull. YOU guys voted in a government that has invited itself into our bedrooms and personal decisions on how to use our bodies. Life was a lot more fun when there were more blowjobs in the White House, and when the rulers were getting enough so they didn't have to jealously try to make sure that no one else was getting any! Have at it!!
|
|
|
Post by Irish Eyes on Apr 15, 2005 19:18:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Apr 16, 2005 16:05:40 GMT -6
Another 'drive-by' (I liked that Jake!) This brings to mind what happened to the availability of a safe and legal abortion. The religious nut-jobs have made it virtually unattainable in many areas through their intimidation of not only the women exercising their constitutional right . . ." First of all Irish, I agree with you that abortion should be a woman's choice and not something the Guv'ment should stick its butt into. However, there AIN'T no Constitutional right to having an abortion. The "privacy" issues that the Supreme Court used to base Roe v. Wade on is truly legal fiction. There is no right to privacy in our national constitution. Thankfully the Flordia State Constitution DOES have a right to privacy section! If you haven't figured it out, the abortion issue has nothing to do with a right to life, or anything like that. It's the fear Fundamentalists have that someone, somewhere is have SEX FOR FUN! Pregnancy to them remains your punishment for "doing it" for fun when all them idiot Religions freeks think sex is only for making babies. So I say.......FUCK 'EM! ;D ............Bob
|
|
|
Post by Lou on Apr 16, 2005 17:41:14 GMT -6
...However, there AIN'T no Constitutional right to having an abortion. The "privacy" issues that the Supreme Court used to base Roe v. Wade on is truly legal fiction. There is no right to privacy in our national constitution... ............Bob I feel compelled to explain: Legal fictions have a long and established history in the common law. Including such as : “knowledge of the agent is knowledge of the principal” or my other favourite “all persons are deemed to know the law”… (yea :i.e. we all read and understand the tax code). SEE: encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Legal_fictionIn Canada the High Court did not create a legal fiction re abortion: the defence was one of the common law defence of necessity, (i.e. go to the clinic and have an abortion or risk death in a back alley hack job etc). SEE: www.cbctrust.com/CHRONOLO.PT1.htmlLOU
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Apr 16, 2005 21:11:12 GMT -6
In Canada the High Court did not create a legal fiction re abortion: the defence was one of the common law defence of necessity, (i.e. go to the clinic and have an abortion or risk death in a back alley hack job etc). LOU Well of course Lou, this makes TOO much sense! The right-to-lifers don't seem to care much for those in American who DIE in the back alley hack job! Go figure! ...............Bob
|
|
|
Post by Harrybutt on Apr 16, 2005 21:55:13 GMT -6
Well hellfire. They already control the birthed among us throughWashington D.C. ....the unbirthed is the next frontier... If they work quickly, they can have us a theocracy by the end of 2008
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Apr 16, 2005 23:19:39 GMT -6
If they work quickly, they can have us a theocracy by the end of 2008 Never............ Yes the Religious Right my be trying to raise it's head, but there are enough Conservatives/Republicans out here that would not allow it to happen. Not everyone that voted Republican, Presidential, Senatorial, or Congressional belongs to the Religious Right. They could have voted that way due to taxes, national security, or just felt that the other candidate was an asshole. I'll take all three. They would lose to many votes and the party is not going to allow that to happen. Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Apr 17, 2005 0:11:08 GMT -6
I feel compelled to explain: LOU Welcome back, LOU. We missed you. And your inane bleeding heart self-quoting illogical ramblings!......Jake
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Apr 17, 2005 17:23:55 GMT -6
Welcome back, LOU. We missed you. And your inane bleeding heart self-quoting illogical ramblings!......Jake GO'T Damn Jake...DON'T piss Lou off! I LOVE reading his inane bleeding heart self-quoting illogical ramblings! It makes me feel secure that the conservatives are runnin' things! ;D ;D .............Bob
|
|
|
Post by Harrybutt on Apr 17, 2005 18:04:45 GMT -6
Bob if'n you need such in order to feel secure...you gots to be the most insecure person ever born. As Bill Maher said Friday nite (after blasting the lame, weak Democrats) "The Republicans are in complete control and drunk with power......." ...and you are insecure? ?
|
|
|
Post by Lady Irie on Apr 17, 2005 18:34:19 GMT -6
If it was happening out here I would say the Pharmacist would be acting on his own. 99.9999% of the Pharmacies out here are chain store Pharmacies, Safeway, Alberstons, Rite Aid, Longs. The mom and pop Pharmacy is a thing of the past here. I don't think any of the chain store Pharmacies would have any policy about refusing to fill a prescription base on moral value. Joe - Do you have a Wal-Mart? In 1999 they chose to discriminate against women and support any of their pharmacists that refused to fill birth control prescriptions based on religious convictions. They also refuse to carry the morning after pill. Of course this totally usurps the authority of the prescribing physician. The pharmacist has no idea of the woman's medical history and possible medical necessity of the prescription. Of course, I bet the pharmacist has no problem selling Viagra to single men! What if the individual working in their sporting goods department doesn't believe in the right to bear arms? Looks like they won't sell the customer that gun. What if the employee has "religious convictions" regarding that book you are about to buy? Watch out - Halloween is next! I have no problem with a store not carrying an item - especially a privately owned an operated one. However, when a chain as large as Wal-Mart serves the general public it appears to me they have an obligation to cater to the good of the whole and not impose personal beliefs on the public. They don't have the right to make their issue everyone elses and I see it as as abuse of power.
|
|