Druggists refuse to give out pill

[ZarathosNY]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=710&e=2&u=/usatoday/20041109/pl_usatoday/druggistsrefusetogiveoutpill

This is ridiculous. A druggist has no right to block you from getting the medicine that was prescribed to you by your doctor. What's next? Someone who hates gays won't dispense their AIDS medications? Or you need to fill out a form to see if a pharmasist agrees with your political views before you get your medicine?

[bmulligan]

I love this quote:
"It (proposed lagislation) just recognizes that pharmacists should not be forced to choose between their consciences and their livelihoods," says Matt Sande of Pro-Life Wisconsin. "They should not be compelled to become parties to abortion."



Then they shouldn't become pharmacists. If you don't like the job, then find another one. Every day we are forced to make difficult choices regarding our morals and our livelihoods. If you aren't strong enough to make the decisions yourself, then god help us all if we default to the government to make them FOR us.

Point being, if you're dumb enough to judge someone for playing god, then don't do it yourself, or at least prepare to be fired for doing such. Don't be a wussy bitch and expect the government to deny someone elses right in order to fabricate one for you.

[jmcc]

I think it funny that they draw the line at playing god with a fetus, but any other form of interfering in Jesus's divine plan for people to get sick and die they're fine with.

[dtcarson]

interesting way of looking at it :)

I agree, they can certainly have their opinions, but they need to either quit the job or deal with it [or bring it up to their bosses].
Do the stores carry condoms?

" "I refuse to dispense a drug with a significant mechanism to stop human life,""

Sleeping pills-heck, virtually drug-- can do that, if you take enough of them.

I'm against abortion, but I don't see the problem with preventive birth control.

[eldad9]

Here's my plan:

1. Become a pharmacist
2. Become a christian scientist
3. Never do any work since it's against my religious beliefs
4. Nobody can fire me.

[jmcc]

Here's my plan:

1. Become a pharmacist
2. Become a christian scientist
3. Never do any work since it's against my religious beliefs
4. Nobody can fire me.

...that's a good plan.

[Quackzilla]

Here's my plan:

1. Become a pharmacist
2. Become a christian scientist
3. Never do any work since it's against my religious beliefs
4. Nobody can fire me.

lol, free money!

[Drocket]

A pharmicist's job is to stand behind a counter, wait for people to hand them scraps of paper, then hand out the type of pill written on that paper. Anyone who can't handle that needs to move to a less demanding job, like sweeping floors.

[eldad9]

Did I get right the type of christians that refuse any medical treatment? I forget, there's so many of them.

[camoor]

More on the Winsconsin case:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/10/12/contraceptive.complaint.ap/

Spiritual pain...

:rofl:

[jmcc]

Man, this is so weak. I thought I lived in a pretty rockin' state after we voted Kerry, but between this and the decision to allow creationism to be taught in schools here I'm hella ashamed to live here.

edit: creationism, not evolution. Derp!

[eldad9]

I have a theory: nothing really got created in the first place, it's all a shroom-induced hallucination.

What do I need to do to get that theory taught in schools?

[Dead of Knight]

It is not fucking abortion. These people need to go fuck themselves.

[David85]

I would have not left the store until someone gave me my meds. It's like someone telling me "You're drugs have been tested on animals and I'm in PETA so I can't give you any". I would rip there fucking head off.

I thought the pill was an over the counter thing?

My favorite would be that this lady gets pregant and doesn't want a kid so then she has an aborshin.

I really can't spell....

[bignick]

I would have not left the store until someone gave me my meds. It's like someone telling me "You're drugs have been tested on animals and I'm in PETA so I can't give you any". I would rip there shaq-fuing head off.

I thought the pill was an over the counter thing?

My favorite would be that this lady gets pregant and doesn't want a kid so then she has an aborshin.

I really can't spell....

Or keeps the kid and sues!!

[Dead of Knight]

I thought the pill was an over the counter thing?


No. There was a proposal to make emergency pills to be taken after having sex OTC, but the FDA rejected it because they're W puppets, apparently.

[ZarathosNY]

I would have not left the store until someone gave me my meds. It's like someone telling me "You're drugs have been tested on animals and I'm in PETA so I can't give you any". I would rip there shaq-fuing head off.

I thought the pill was an over the counter thing?

My favorite would be that this lady gets pregant and doesn't want a kid so then she has an aborshin.

I really can't spell....

Or keeps the kid and sues!!

Or keep the kid and force the pharmacist to adopt it.

[eldad9]

... or just to pay child support.

[pfunkpearl]

A pharmicist's job is to stand behind a counter, wait for people to hand them scraps of paper, then hand out the type of pill written on that paper. Anyone who can't handle that needs to move to a less demanding job, like sweeping floors.

sweeping floors for jesus!!

[elprincipe]

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills.

This seems logical.

[camoor]

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills.

This seems logical.

Not really, sounds more like what a spineless union would come up with. It's the pharmacist's damn job to hand out drugs whether they like it or not (Heck, everyone has to do something they don't like at their job). It's so simple we have a saying for it here in the US:

"If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen"

[David85]

I would have not left the store until someone gave me my meds. It's like someone telling me "You're drugs have been tested on animals and I'm in PETA so I can't give you any". I would rip there shaq-fuing head off.

I thought the pill was an over the counter thing?

My favorite would be that this lady gets pregant and doesn't want a kid so then she has an aborshin.

I really can't spell....

Or keeps the kid and sues!!

Or keep the kid and force the pharmacist to adopt it.


HAHAHAHA

They probably would through, rather have the kid then "kill" it.

But I rather die then grow up in a Chraistian fucked up family freak show.

[camoor]

I would have not left the store until someone gave me my meds. It's like someone telling me "You're drugs have been tested on animals and I'm in PETA so I can't give you any". I would rip there shaq-fuing head off.

I thought the pill was an over the counter thing?

My favorite would be that this lady gets pregant and doesn't want a kid so then she has an aborshin.

I really can't spell....

Or keeps the kid and sues!!

Or keep the kid and force the pharmacist to adopt it.

So true, it's easier to be a "holier-then-thou" type when you're a 30-something loser Christian fundamentalist who thinks living on the edge is having 2 Franzias after dinner then when you're a 20-something hottie who got a little too drunk at the frats last weekend.

[alonzomourning23]

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills.

This seems logical.

Not really, sounds more like what a spineless union would come up with. It's the pharmacist's damn job to hand out drugs whether they like it or not (Heck, everyone has to do something they don't like at their job). It's so simple we have a saying for it here in the US:

"If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen"

I'd like to know the amount of pharmacists we have. Is there an abudance of them? A shortage of them, or just enough? If there is barely enough or a shortage you have to be more lenient, otherwise the situation becomes worse. If there is an abundance then you can be more selective,

[Quackzilla]

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills.

This seems logical.

Except for the fact that the pharmacist in question STOLE the prescription so the woman couldn't go somewhere else.

[elprincipe]

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills.

This seems logical.

Not really, sounds more like what a spineless union would come up with. It's the pharmacist's damn job to hand out drugs whether they like it or not (Heck, everyone has to do something they don't like at their job). It's so simple we have a saying for it here in the US:

"If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen"

Nope, sounds like what a fair compromise is that keeps everybody happy. But ideological extremists like you aren't really interested in that, are you?

[elprincipe]

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills.

This seems logical.

Except for the fact that the pharmacist in question STOLE the prescription so the woman couldn't go somewhere else.

As usual, you're talking about something I did not. I simply referred to the APA's policy. Obviously stealing a prescription from somebody is wrong as stealing is wrong, duh. :roll:

[Backlash]

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills.

This seems logical.

So if I work at McDonald's and some fat-ass comes in, I can refuse to serve her but recommend that she go to Burger King? I think over-eating to that degree is immoral (deadly sin - gluttony).

[elprincipe]

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills.

This seems logical.

So if I work at McDonald's and some fat-ass comes in, I can refuse to serve her but recommend that she go to Burger King? I think over-eating to that degree is immoral (deadly sin - gluttony).

Sure, if they want to employ you.

[camoor]

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills.

This seems logical.

So if I work at McDonald's and some fat-ass comes in, I can refuse to serve her but recommend that she go to Burger King? I think over-eating to that degree is immoral (deadly sin - gluttony).

Sure, if they want to employ you.

Wow.

Do you really think that the CVS pharmicist told his prospective employers that he was going to make moral judgements on the types of drugs people wanted, and then unilaterally act on those judgements. :lol:

And you call me an ideological extremist.

[SadieDee]

That pharmicist needs to be kicked in the balls hard.

I'm female and use the pill primarily to regulate menstrual cycles. It can be used for more than just birth control. It helps treat acme and regulate mood swings. Most medicines have more than one use. Some women are very, very irregular when it comes to their cycle. Once you stop taking the pill it disrupts the cycle and it's very hard to get on schedule again.

What gets me is that the pharmacist didn't ask if she was married or not. He just assumed she was not because she was a college student. She could have been married and then he would have put a less "sinful" relationship at risk.

It's not an issue of abortion because you are preventing a fetus/zygote from forming. If you are going to consider a fetus an egg or sperm, well you know what? I killed a baby every month since I was 12 and guys kill thousands when they jack off.

Personally, I don't think guys should tell women what to do with their bodies. They aren't going to carry the baby. To those men who are 100% against abortion - try slitting your wrists and bleeding for week and then see how you like it. Really, try it. :twisted:

[Drocket]

I'm female and use the pill primarily to regulate menstrual cycles. It can be used for more than just birth control. It helps treat acme and regulate mood swings. Most medicines have more than one use. Some women are very, very irregular when it comes to their cycle. Once you stop taking the pill it disrupts the cycle and it's very hard to get on schedule again.

What gets me is that the pharmacist didn't ask if she was married or not. He just assumed she was not because she was a college student. She could have been married and then he would have put a less "sinful" relationship at risk.

Well, he did ask her if it was for birth control or for other reasons, and she did tell him that it was for birth control. Regarding marriage: its quite possible that it wouldn't have mattered to him. There are a whole lot of religious nuts - I'm sorry, I mean Catholics - in the world who are against birth control in any way, shape or form. They prefer their women barefoot and pregnant, for thus Spoke the Lord: "Thy Women shall pop out Babies on a Regular Schedule, every Twelve Months from Marriage until Menopause"

[camoor]

I'm female and use the pill primarily to regulate menstrual cycles. It can be used for more than just birth control. It helps treat acme and regulate mood swings. Most medicines have more than one use. Some women are very, very irregular when it comes to their cycle. Once you stop taking the pill it disrupts the cycle and it's very hard to get on schedule again.

What gets me is that the pharmacist didn't ask if she was married or not. He just assumed she was not because she was a college student. She could have been married and then he would have put a less "sinful" relationship at risk.

Well, he did ask her if it was for birth control or for other reasons, and she did tell him that it was for birth control. Regarding marriage: its quite possible that it wouldn't have mattered to him. There are a whole lot of religious nuts - I'm sorry, I mean Catholics - in the world who are against birth control in any way, shape or form. They prefer their women barefoot and pregnant, for thus Spoke the Lord: "Thy Women shall pop out Babies on a Regular Schedule, every Twelve Months from Marriage until Menopause"

LOL my parents are semi-catholic but they don't believe all that birth control stuff (and so was Kerry!). Bush only supports abstenence programs to fight AIDS (soooo realistic). And there are a bunch of other Christian sects that preach it too (I bet dollars to donuts that this pharmacist was an evangelist). It's a bad idea ANY time you let the church think for you. You have free will for a reason.

[elprincipe]

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills.

This seems logical.

So if I work at McDonald's and some fat-ass comes in, I can refuse to serve her but recommend that she go to Burger King? I think over-eating to that degree is immoral (deadly sin - gluttony).

Sure, if they want to employ you.

Wow.

Do you really think that the CVS pharmicist told his prospective employers that he was going to make moral judgements on the types of drugs people wanted, and then unilaterally act on those judgements. :lol:

And you call me an ideological extremist.

What are you talking about? I never said he told his employer. My response was just to indicate that if they still wanted to employ you knowing that, then I don't see a problem. No problem with them not wanting to employ you because you're not willing to do what's required for the job, of course.

[elprincipe]

Personally, I don't think guys should tell women what to do with their bodies. They aren't going to carry the baby. To those men who are 100% against abortion - try slitting your wrists and bleeding for week and then see how you like it. Really, try it. :twisted:

I'll never understand why the pro-abortion folks keep repeating the "don't tell me what to do with my body" rhetoric. As anyone who is against abortion will tell you, they are complete agreement with that statement...it's just that it's not your body, but someone else's.

There was already an extensive abortion topic recently and we don't need to repeat it, but this rhetoric is really shallow and rather insipid.

[jmcc]

Personally, I don't think guys should tell women what to do with their bodies. They aren't going to carry the baby. To those men who are 100% against abortion - try slitting your wrists and bleeding for week and then see how you like it. Really, try it. :twisted:

I'll never understand why the pro-abortion folks keep repeating the "don't tell me what to do with my body" rhetoric. As anyone who is against abortion will tell you, they are complete agreement with that statement...it's just that it's not your body, but someone else's.

There was already an extensive abortion topic recently and we don't need to repeat it, but this rhetoric is really shallow and rather insipid.

So your saying "you're wrong about your stance, but don't argue with me?"

[camoor]

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills.

This seems logical.

So if I work at McDonald's and some fat-ass comes in, I can refuse to serve her but recommend that she go to Burger King? I think over-eating to that degree is immoral (deadly sin - gluttony).

Sure, if they want to employ you.

Wow.

Do you really think that the CVS pharmicist told his prospective employers that he was going to make moral judgements on the types of drugs people wanted, and then unilaterally act on those judgements. :lol:

And you call me an ideological extremist.

What are you talking about? I never said he told his employer. My response was just to indicate that if they still wanted to employ you knowing that, then I don't see a problem. No problem with them not wanting to employ you because you're not willing to do what's required for the job, of course.

OK it's getting silly at this point, so let me summarize:

How many mainstream pharmacy employers in their right-minds are going to employ someone knowing that they are a religious extremist who isn't going to do a required task?

Answer: None

The truth is that this guy never told his prospective employers that he wasn't willing to do part of the job he was applying for, and now they could be getting pulled into a lawsuit.

I'm sure this guy really believes in his cause, but if he can't check his private religion at the door then he needs to go out proactively find another line of work. After all, if I'm a Hasidic Jew, I'm not going to go out and get a security guard job that requires me to work Saturdays (Hasidic Jews are forbidden to work on Saturdays). That would be irresponsible, and furthermore just plain stupid.

[elprincipe]

Personally, I don't think guys should tell women what to do with their bodies. They aren't going to carry the baby. To those men who are 100% against abortion - try slitting your wrists and bleeding for week and then see how you like it. Really, try it. :twisted:

I'll never understand why the pro-abortion folks keep repeating the "don't tell me what to do with my body" rhetoric. As anyone who is against abortion will tell you, they are complete agreement with that statement...it's just that it's not your body, but someone else's.

There was already an extensive abortion topic recently and we don't need to repeat it, but this rhetoric is really shallow and rather insipid.

So your saying "you're wrong about your stance, but don't argue with me?"

Not at all, although if asked yes, I would say that stance is immoral and wrong. What I was saying is that the argument used is stupid because it isn't a differing point of view. Not many people believe that women can't do what they want with their own bodies, just there is a large difference in what is viewed as part of a woman's body, that's all.

[elprincipe]

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills.

This seems logical.

So if I work at McDonald's and some fat-ass comes in, I can refuse to serve her but recommend that she go to Burger King? I think over-eating to that degree is immoral (deadly sin - gluttony).

Sure, if they want to employ you.

Wow.

Do you really think that the CVS pharmicist told his prospective employers that he was going to make moral judgements on the types of drugs people wanted, and then unilaterally act on those judgements. :lol:

And you call me an ideological extremist.

What are you talking about? I never said he told his employer. My response was just to indicate that if they still wanted to employ you knowing that, then I don't see a problem. No problem with them not wanting to employ you because you're not willing to do what's required for the job, of course.

OK it's getting silly at this point, so let me summarize:

How many mainstream pharmacy employers in their right-minds are going to employ someone knowing that they are a religious extremist who isn't going to do a required task?

Answer: None

The truth is that this guy never told his prospective employers that he wasn't willing to do part of the job he was applying for, and now they could be getting pulled into a lawsuit.

I'm sure this guy really believes in his cause, but if he can't check his private religion at the door then he needs to go out proactively find another line of work. After all, if I'm a Hasidic Jew, I'm not going to go out and get a security guard job that requires me to work Saturdays (Hasidic Jews are forbidden to work on Saturdays). That would be irresponsible, and furthermore just plain stupid.

Dude, I'm agreeing with you, just take it. In fact, unless he has let his employer know that he has some problem doing parts of his job, I see no problem with him being fired on the spot.

[camoor]

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills.

This seems logical.

So if I work at McDonald's and some fat-ass comes in, I can refuse to serve her but recommend that she go to Burger King? I think over-eating to that degree is immoral (deadly sin - gluttony).

Sure, if they want to employ you.

Wow.

Do you really think that the CVS pharmicist told his prospective employers that he was going to make moral judgements on the types of drugs people wanted, and then unilaterally act on those judgements. :lol:

And you call me an ideological extremist.

What are you talking about? I never said he told his employer. My response was just to indicate that if they still wanted to employ you knowing that, then I don't see a problem. No problem with them not wanting to employ you because you're not willing to do what's required for the job, of course.

OK it's getting silly at this point, so let me summarize:

How many mainstream pharmacy employers in their right-minds are going to employ someone knowing that they are a religious extremist who isn't going to do a required task?

Answer: None

The truth is that this guy never told his prospective employers that he wasn't willing to do part of the job he was applying for, and now they could be getting pulled into a lawsuit.

I'm sure this guy really believes in his cause, but if he can't check his private religion at the door then he needs to go out proactively find another line of work. After all, if I'm a Hasidic Jew, I'm not going to go out and get a security guard job that requires me to work Saturdays (Hasidic Jews are forbidden to work on Saturdays). That would be irresponsible, and furthermore just plain stupid.

Dude, I'm agreeing with you, just take it. In fact, unless he has let his employer know that he has some problem doing parts of his job, I see no problem with him being fired on the spot.

Cool! And it only took us 5 posts to find out we're arguing the same point.

:wave: :rofl:

[elprincipe]

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills.

This seems logical.

So if I work at McDonald's and some fat-ass comes in, I can refuse to serve her but recommend that she go to Burger King? I think over-eating to that degree is immoral (deadly sin - gluttony).

Sure, if they want to employ you.

Wow.

Do you really think that the CVS pharmicist told his prospective employers that he was going to make moral judgements on the types of drugs people wanted, and then unilaterally act on those judgements. :lol:

And you call me an ideological extremist.

What are you talking about? I never said he told his employer. My response was just to indicate that if they still wanted to employ you knowing that, then I don't see a problem. No problem with them not wanting to employ you because you're not willing to do what's required for the job, of course.

OK it's getting silly at this point, so let me summarize:

How many mainstream pharmacy employers in their right-minds are going to employ someone knowing that they are a religious extremist who isn't going to do a required task?

Answer: None

The truth is that this guy never told his prospective employers that he wasn't willing to do part of the job he was applying for, and now they could be getting pulled into a lawsuit.

I'm sure this guy really believes in his cause, but if he can't check his private religion at the door then he needs to go out proactively find another line of work. After all, if I'm a Hasidic Jew, I'm not going to go out and get a security guard job that requires me to work Saturdays (Hasidic Jews are forbidden to work on Saturdays). That would be irresponsible, and furthermore just plain stupid.

Dude, I'm agreeing with you, just take it. In fact, unless he has let his employer know that he has some problem doing parts of his job, I see no problem with him being fired on the spot.

Cool! And it only took us 5 posts to find out we're arguing the same point.

:wave: :rofl:

:shock: :lol: :lol: :P It's the beauty of the Internet(s)!

[Ikohn4ever]

Someone needs to stop these "Activist" Pharmacists, before they change the way of drugs as we know it. The sanctity of a man and his viagra should never be interfered with. We should pass an Amendment banning the not selling of perscription drugs. Cause having them not sold is what is hurting America