![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Christina
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 27 2002
Status: offline
|
 Posted - November 10 2004 : 1:31:00 PM
|
Okay, guys. I'm throwing this one out for discussion. The article below personally disturbs me to no end. I know because of religious differences folks on this board will feel very differently about contraception, but the idea of someone not being able to get access to a certain medication because of a pharmacists' religious belief is scary.
http://www.prevention.com/article/0,5778,s1-1-93-35-4130-1,00.html
An article about this also appeared in USA Today yesterday. One pharmacist in the Midwest not only refused to fill a woman's prescription for The Pill, but he also refused to transfer the prescription to another Pharmacist or to even give her back her paper prescription.
I'm sorry, I say believe what you want and live your faith to the fullest, but your religious belief should not impact another person's health care decisions or necessities. Many women out there (yours truly included) take The Pill not for its contraceptive purpose but for medical conditions. What if suddenly tomorrow some religious group comes forward and says a certain cholesterol drug is against their beliefs? Where does this mess stop?
What's your say on this one???
|
See this face? This is the face of a woman on the edge.
Whoopi Goldberg, "Jumping Jack Flash"
|
|
report to moderator
|
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
 Posted - November 10 2004 : 2:54:00 PM
|
After reading the article you have linked, I can honestly say that such a decision made by a specific doctor or pharmiscist, in itself, is not illegal. I could not find evidence supporting the story of the pharmacist who allegedly seized the written script and refused to give it back ("Jason Blair, call your office."). Such an action is theft by unlawful taking, and said pharmacist would not only have to face legal penalties but could also have his/her professional license revoked for such an action.
Back to the actual story that was found, if either woman did not like the decision of their doctor or pharmacist, they can always go to another (Unless of course the government hijacks healthcare, then such choices are no longer an option...)
Since birth control, in and of itself, does not constitute a 'life-saving' proceedure, any licensed medical professional (who is authorized to dispense such medicines) may refuse to prescribe/dispense such medicines, on moral grounds. The patient then has the right to go to another medical professional who will prescribe/dispense the requested items. Just as the woman has a right to her beliefs, so does the doctor/pharmacist.
My advice to anyone facing such questions, is to go to the doctor/pharmacist of your own choice and who fits your own beliefs. Individual rights work both ways...
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
report to moderator  |
|
|
Christina
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 27 2002
Status: offline
|
|
|
Christina
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 27 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - November 10 2004 : 4:23:47 PM
|
And just a followup, I completely agree with your perspective on this. Your advice follows along with that given toward the end of the Prevention article...if someone's beliefs don't jibe with yours, find someone else. My main concern is if a woman would need this medicine and for whatever reason (small town, nobody else on duty, no other pharmacy open, whatever) one of these pharmacists was the only person available. In this day and age it's a rare pharmacy with only one person working the counter at a time, so my solution would be that if there's a staff member who refuses on principle to dispense the medication, it probably would be the best practice to have somebody else available on staff or at least nearby that WOULD be willing to dispense it if needed. Nobody should be forced to go against their ethics or beliefs as long as the medication in question is not necessary for somebody's survival. In the USA Today article they note that one pharmacist even refused to REFER the woman to somebody else...that's where I have the problem. This is one of those cases where there has to be a balance in between the rights of an individual to have his/her beliefs and the rights of an individual to have at least semi-convenient access to the medical care they've been prescribed. If a pharmacy is run by a druggist who refuses to dispense contraception or similar medications, they should put some sort of notice in their ads or on a sign near the counter so customers would know what the deal was.
Good points all.
Christina |
See this face? This is the face of a woman on the edge.
Whoopi Goldberg, "Jumping Jack Flash"
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - November 10 2004 : 4:38:55 PM
|
quote:
Chritina said: sarge, just a note. The story of the other pharmacist was in USA Today of Tuesday, Sept. 9, not in the Prevention article.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm
I did find the story, but it was a call that I placed to an old service buddy of mine who is a cop in neighboring Dane County, that raised my doubts.
quote:
Christina also noted: In the USA Today article they note that one pharmacist even refused to REFER the woman to somebody else...that's where I have the problem. This is one of those cases where there has to be a balance in between the rights of an individual to have his/her beliefs and the rights of an individual to have at least semi-convenient access to the medical care they've been prescribed.
A potential patient or customer, has the right to a second opinion or choice, the provider or proprietor is not obligated to give references. To mandate such actions, starts one down a slippery slope, as I have said before 'Secular Humanism' is as much a 'faith' as any other, and to have governmental force wielded in its name is just as dangerous. As to 'semi-convienent access', there is always the telephone book; as I also noted, call and check to see if a potential provider meets with your beliefs... it is your right to do so.
quote:
Christina finished with: If a pharmacy is run by a druggist who refuses to dispense contraception or similar medications, they should put some sort of notice in their ads or on a sign near the counter so customers would know what the deal was.
I agree with you on this, however a sign should also be displayed saying that a pharmicist would be willing to dispense such medication. That way, a person can decide if the want to spend their money at his/her establishment.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kate
Ariel's Cabin Caretaker, Retired
United Kingdom
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
June 10 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - November 10 2004 : 7:44:55 PM
|
You may be right, Sgt., in that the Pharmacist’s actions were not illegal. And you may have the rights o’ it that the medical professional has the right to refuse to prescribe/dispense contraceptive medication. However, like Christina, I find the whole idea of a pharmacist actually refusing to fill a prescription is really something I can’t come to terms with! I don’t actually believe that a pharmacist should have the right to decide, in the course of his job, whether to fill individual scripts or not (assuming the customer/patient got the prescription honestly, of course!).
I’m assuming that contraception is given out to patients in pretty much the same way that it is here. When a patient goes to her doctor with various problems such as given in the article (severe acne, hormone imbalance, etc), many of the symptoms can be alleviated by ‘the pill’. It’s a doctor’s professional judgement call and he believes it is in the patient’s best interest to be given this medication.
If the patient has gone to her doctor for ‘the pill’ in the hopes of staving off an unwanted pregnancy, then… the doctor will make sure that s/he has counselled the patient in the physical, emotional – and moral – implications of taking it. The doctor will give clear information on what ‘the pill’ means, what it does, and how it prevents an unwanted pregnancy. When all this has been done, and patient and doctor are still in accord that this is the correct preventative medication for the patient, then a script is given. It’s not just prescribed on a whim!
To my way of thinking, the pharmacist’s job is to dispense that script given to that patient by her doctor. S/he is not there to judge the moral implications of a patient taking that particular treatment regime. We have to assume that the patient’s doctor has prescribed that particular drug in the belief that it is in the patient’s best interest to have/take it. And it seems a little presumptive – no, it seems ARROGANT – for a pharmacist to presume that the doctor and patient are not adult or ‘moral’ enough to make the correct decision!
Yes! I understand that it’s the pharmacist that is making his/her views known and deciding not to be a part of the ‘final solution’ to an unwanted pregnancy. And TRULY!! I respect his/her right to hold those views and I respect their right to not want to be a part of ‘the pill’ treatment. But as a supposed 'professional', as part of the medical system and as a medical service provider, I feel that it isn't right for them to be allowed to impose THEIR standards on their 'customers' and disregard their customer's wishes and needs.
As I see it - if the pharmacist has a problem filling prescriptions FOR ANY DRUG, for any reason, then… he shouldn’t be in the job. Simple as that.
Yes, I understand that if a patient’s moral views don’t coincide with her doctor’s and he refuses to give her a prescription for contraception, then she has the choice to find another doctor who WILL. And that this is possibly the best solution when it comes to pharmacists who are now taking this line. I accept that that’s one way of dealing with this situation.
Should a particular pharmacist insist on following HIS OWN judgement, I’d say boycott that pharmacy. Don’t use it for ANY reason - don’t give them your money for even a pack of gum. And let the pharmacist know that as an adult, YOU are as capable of making an informed, and intelligent decision regarding your own body, just as HE makes decisions about HIS ‘family’ issues, without YOUR interference.
BUT – I feel it’s a situation that shouldn’t arise. Where will the pharmacist’s power to dispense – or NOT dispense- drugs, stop? What drug will he/she choose not to dispense next? What if he is also strongly opposed to ‘gender reassignment’ and won’t dispense hormone therapy for these patients? What if s/he decides that in ‘these circomestances I can’t dispense…’ Where does it |
Kate
"Cuimhnich air na daoine o'n d'thainig thu." (Remember the people from whom you came.)
~ Celtic Wisdom
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Doc M
Great Quack Healer of the Frontier
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - November 11 2004 : 11:28:01 AM
|
Oh, Kate -- you've summed up the problem beautifully. It bothers me
tremendously when someone takes a job, knowing full well the rights
and responsibilities it holds, and then suddenly refuses to do it
because of "responsibilities to a higher power." Am I saying no one
has a right to those feelings? Of course not!! But if you feel that
way, don't work in a family planning clinic, don't iron sheets for
the Ku Klux Klan, don't sharpen pencils for the ACLU, don't join the
army. You takes their money, you follows their rules. I guess it's
part of the culture today that everyone feels "entitled" and that
rules don't apply to them. You don't like the way things on your job
are going? Join committees, talk to your bosses, educate yourself,
change the culture from within if you can -- stand on a table like
Norma Rae and holler your lungs out. And if nothing can be resolved,
then move on down the line and find your life's work elsewhere.
My job is not exactly dealing with life and death, but as some of
you might know, :->>, I have very strong political and social opinions! *Shock! Shock!*
How easy it would be for me, if someone was asking me to recommend
a book on a topic I personally find loathsome -- let's say for the
sake of argument "The Wit and Wisdom of Dick Cheney" -- to say,"Oh,
I'm terribly sorry. We don't have that book, and I think it's out of
print. In fact, all copies were burned yesterday! Dern it!" But my
job is not to tell people what to read or what to think. My job is
to help them find what they're looking for. Period. I don't want to
know the inner thoughts and desires of my customers -- god help me!
even though they usually tell me anyway -- and they certainly will
never know mine. A slightly raised eyebrow and a pleasant "Really?"
or "My, my! Imagine that!" is the best defense..a technique learned
at my lovely, gentle, southern-born mama's knee.
The pharmicist thing has many other subtleties, of course -- male
control, deciding what we little ladies really need, embarassment
and subtle harassment to discourage women from getting the medications
that they have every legal right to receive, while happily handing
out male whoopee drugs like M&Ms. But that's a topic for another day. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - November 11 2004 : 2:42:41 PM
|
I think you two are missing what I was saying. Comparing a government-employee like a soldier to a private business person, is comparing apples to oranges. Personally, I think that anyone has a right to seek out legitimate non-life saving medications, but what I was asking, is it right to legislate a morality (Doctors and Pharmacists may be licensed by the state, but not paid by the same)? If so, then to what end?
The state-licensing progream is to insure compliance with laws concerning prescription medicine and medical procedure. There are a good number of OB Docs who refuse to perform an abortion, unless it is to save the mother's life or in the case of rape/incest, do you think that the law should also force these people as well? The market will always provide people who are willing to legally perform procedures and dispense medicines, the government does not need to get involved. Please do read my entire posts, before breaking out the torches and pitchforks...
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Doc M
Great Quack Healer of the Frontier
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - November 11 2004 : 4:46:37 PM
|
Does everyone who does not agree with you necessarily come equipped with a torch and a pitchfork??? I'm not holding either one. Just driving my broom takes all my attention.
Anyway,of course an MD has the right to decide which procedures to
perform, whether it be an abortion or a facelift for a 14 year old.
A licensed pharmacist who works for a drug store which dispenses
medication, and who is presumably being paid by that drug store for
his work, has no right -- in my opinion -- NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to
decide which legal drugs he's going to sell if a customer comes in
with a legal prescription from a doctor's office. If he has religious
or moral scruples about the drugs he is working with, he should reconsider his choice of profession. He has no more right to refuse
service to someone than does, say, a licensed beautician has the right
to refuse to cut the hair of an african-american customer. Should the
state or federal government have laws to this effect? You bet your
sweet bippy it should!!! And I can't think of a better use for them!
Doc M
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kate
Ariel's Cabin Caretaker, Retired
United Kingdom
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
June 10 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - November 11 2004 : 5:40:18 PM
|
Three cheers, Doc Mary! I like your way of thinking.  Seriously, I agree that this problem could affect all kinds of services, not just the medical profession.
Well, Sgt., you’re right. I did miss the part where you were asking ‘should there be legislation concerning the moral implications of working in a job’. (Can't think how I managed to miss that!) But… I think you missed a part of what *I* wrote too…
I was merely giving my opinion on Christina's original post. And my opinion was - I don’t think medical services should employ people who insist on involving their personal moral stands in their day-to-day work.
If the various medical professional bodies set out a contract whereby it was agreed that medical employees would accept the responsibilities that goes with the job, and would do the job as described in the remit (dispensing ALL drugs), then… there should be no need to ‘legislate’ that this is the way the medical profession will work. But if it comes to legislation then I say, “so be it”. Because I really believe that there must be some line drawn where the dispensing of medical treatment/drugs SHOULD NOT involve moral issues.
Yes indeed, this should include doctors that refuse to do abortions, too. Whether you like it or not, legislation has declared that abortion is legal, that it is a recognised medical treatment. And as such, I believe that Doctors should be mandated to treat women who wish this procedure done. If they can’t find it in themselves to do so, then they should move over into another ‘specialty’ where their moral convictions cannot be compromised.
I’m an Occupational Therapist. I was working in a hospital CVA (‘stroke’) ward, with patients having varying degrees of disability. One particular patient, whom I will call Bobby, had had a stroke that left him with a right side hemiplegia and virtually no abilities in his right limbs. Now, as I worked with Bobby, I found him to be a lovely person, lovely sense of humour, worked hard at his exercises and tried VERY HARD to do everything I asked of him. What you would call ‘the model patient’.
One day, I was working with him, working on his fine motor skills (his ‘pinch grip’). Jigsaw puzzles are great for this exercise and so… I set one out on the table in front of him and asked him to go to it. He sat like a wooden stump… I knew he didn’t have dispraxia (unable to plan ‘motor’ acts, impairment of motor control, and other disruptions to the sensorimotor system). So… I wondered what was wrong! I encouraged Bobby to try picking up the pieces… to no avail. I tried coaxing him to ‘just have a go’… He’d done so well up to then, I was just stumped. He had disarthria, discoordination of the speech mechanism so he wasn’t able to articulate what he was thinking. Finally, in complete frustration, he swept the puzzle onto the floor (with his ‘good’ arm, I might add), and wrote on the table in big, bold letters, underlined a half dozen times ‘he’s BLACK!’ It took me a moment to work it out but the jigsaw puzzle box showed the picture of a little African boy carrying a bucket of water… I was TOTALLY STUNNED! Bobby wouldn’t do the puzzle because – BOBBY WAS A RACIST!!
Well, in the normal course of my life, I won’t tolerate racists. And for a moment, I was completely horrified! My first reaction was to slap him and tell him that I was NOT going to help a racist get better so that he could go on sharing that attitude with anyone who cared to listen to his twisted views! But I didn’t. I got down on my hands and knees, picked up the pieces and put the puzzle back on the supplies shelf – and got another one down with racing cars on it. I set the pieces in front of him and without any prompting, he slowly started to pick up them up and put them in their places…
Since then, I’ve had another two occasions when I’ve wanted to throw my hands in the air and declare that I have NO INTENTION of helping anyone with such int |
Kate
"Cuimhnich air na daoine o'n d'thainig thu." (Remember the people from whom you came.)
~ Celtic Wisdom
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Christina
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 27 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - November 11 2004 : 6:05:49 PM
|
If the kind of situations written about in the articles persist in happening, I personally think it would be in the best interest of major drug chains to decide in their employment policies how they're going to handle this issue. Yes, it's Joe (or Jill) Druggist's right to have religious beliefs and feel however they want to about certain drugs, but it's also a company's right to make sure that the employees they're paying their money to serve all customers equally and consequently not risk the company itself losing revenue. I don't think it's too far-fetched to imagine companies such as Walgreens, Rite Aid, Eckerd, etc. considering policies which say "Employees are required to sell legal drugs to customers with legal prescriptions in order to remain employed with our company." This would be similar to the policy our newspaper corporation has, for instance, which mandates that while we employees are on their dime, we are required to cover whatever stories pop up on our beat no matter what we may feel about their subjects or issues. i.e. I might be a devout evangelical Christian who is completely against gambling (I'm not either one, this is just for arguments' sake) but if they're paying me to work for them and my beat as the general assignment reporter requires me to do a story on the woman who just won $50 million playing the lottery, I either put my beliefs in my pocket and cover it without judging her or I respectfully ask to be reassigned to another position or I respectfully gather my junk into a cardboard box and go elsewhere...
I happen to think those standards should be used by big drug store companies. If I'm a citizen who walks into any public store, I should generally be able to expect that the people behind the counter taking my money are willing to serve me and dispense to me legal services and legal goods without me being subject to their religious beliefs.
My expectations of this equal service would naturally be heightened if I walk into a national chain store. If I walk into Podunk Drugs in the middle of Elk Lick, Arkansas, and the one pharmacist who works there doesn't want to sell me birth control, that's a little bit of a different story. HIS business, he can do what he wants. But I have a little less sympathy for that fact if the guy or gal in the white coat is representing a multi-million dollar corporation. |
See this face? This is the face of a woman on the edge.
Whoopi Goldberg, "Jumping Jack Flash"
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - November 11 2004 : 6:40:50 PM
|
quote:
Christina noted: I happen to think those standards should be used by big drug store companies. If I'm a citizen who walks into any public store, I should generally be able to expect that the people behind the counter taking my money are willing to serve me and dispense to me legal services and legal goods without me being subject to their religious beliefs.
My expectations of this equal service would naturally be heightened if I walk into a national chain store. If I walk into Podunk Drugs in the middle of Elk Lick, Arkansas, and the one pharmacist who works there doesn't want to sell me birth control, that's a little bit of a different story. HIS business, he can do what he wants. But I have a little less sympathy for that fact if the guy or gal in the white coat is representing a multi-million dollar corporation.
I can see your point, but does the company policy of a pharmacy chain deserve any less protection, than a privately-owned establishment? If the pharmacist is an employee of a chain drug store, and is in compliance with company policy, then so be it... look somewhere else. However, if the drug store chain has a policy prohibiting the actions of the pharmacist, then he/she should be subject to disciplinary action from the company.
Look, we are not talking about civil rights here (The whole race-comparisson thing just doesn't fit, sorry folks), there is no Constitutionaly-Guarenteed Right to contraception. There is only case law protecting the person who seeks it or possesses it. In a nutshell, you have a right to seek it, purchase it, use it... However, you do not have a right to demand it from someone who wishes not to sell it. Like it or not, those are the facts.
Now you may ask, "Does it make it right?" Well, that goes back to my original question concerning the legislation of morality. My views are that the government needs to stay out of this. If a person feels they have a right to possess and use such medicines, due to their own morals (Remember what I said about Secular Humanism being a faith as much as any other), then a business owner also has a right not to stock or sell such items (If their own morals dictate such action). This way the beliefs of both parties are protected, and both will find like minded people to either sell them the medicine or frequent their establishment.
In conclusion, what I am saying is that even though our Founding Fathers seen to it that the minority would be protected from the tyranny of the majority, the reverse is also true.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kate
Ariel's Cabin Caretaker, Retired
United Kingdom
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
June 10 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - November 11 2004 : 9:23:38 PM
|
quote:
Look, we are not talking about civil rights here (The whole race-comparisson thing just doesn't fit, sorry folks), there is no Constitutionaly-Guarenteed Right to contraception. There is only case law protecting the person who seeks it or possesses it. In a nutshell, you have a right to seek it, purchase it, use it... However, you do not have a right to demand it from someone who wishes not to sell it. Like it or not, those are the facts.
No… you’re right, sir, we do not. BUT – we SHOULD have the right to make sure that EVERYONE gets the medication they are prescribed, that it is not denied them solely for moral reasons on the dispenser’s part. Medical service providers SHOULD be doing just that – providing a medical service. If they can’t do that, as a chain store or a private business, then I see no place for them in a medical service or setting. That’s why I say that if it comes to it, there SHOULD be legislation put in place to ensure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen.
I think that medical services SHOULDN’T be a gamble… we shouldn’t wander into a pharmacy and hand our prescriptions over, just to have some jumped up little toe-rag tell us he refuses to fill our prescription on the grounds it might upset his morals! Oooops, sorry… just to have the pharmacist refuse to fill it because it conflicts with his belief system. EXCUSE ME????? I’m a METHODIST – so what’s YOUR moral system got to do with MINE, friend????
Okay… back to ‘serious’! Perhaps the answer is to install a pharmacy attached to the Medical Service within the Doctor’s office itself, so that if given a prescription, you can be sure it will be filled?? I’m going on the assumption that if the doctor has no moral problem in prescribing it, then his Office pharmacist would have no moral problem in filling the script.
It would work, I think… but it’s a cop-out (if you’ll pardon the phrase, Sgt.!) – and I just don’t like ‘cop-out’s’, particularly in the medical field. If a pharmacy is going to ‘opt out’ of filling CERTAIN prescriptions, then I say it should have it’s licence to dispense revoked. By all means, sell hair spray and KY Jelly but – DON’T allow them to dispense any drugs. And after all, it would seem to ME (but I know little about the American ‘Trades Description Act’ so I may be wrong in your territory) that to refuse to fill certain prescriptions would contravene the Trades Description Act whereby they advertise as providing a prescription filling service.
quote:
Now you may ask, "Does it make it right?" Well, that goes back to my original question concerning the legislation of morality. My views are that the government needs to stay out of this.
Well… that’s a fair point. You’re absolutely right – ‘morality’ can’t possibly be legislated. There are too many ideas of what’s ‘moral’ and what isn’t. There are too many views of what is right and what is wrong. And that’s why I can’t agree with you though on your next statement where you think the government needs to stay out of this. I say it needs to step IN. I believe that EVERYONE is entitled to medical assistance, such as treatment and getting prescribed drugs. And so I believe that the Government needs to step in and set up legislation that requires those in the medical field to do their job - that of treating, prescribing – and dispensing drugs.
I agree – DON’T discriminate between Chain store Drugstores or private ones. As you say, “does the company policy of a pharmacy chain deserve any less protection, than a privately-owned establishment”, no it doesn’t. Make |
Kate
"Cuimhnich air na daoine o'n d'thainig thu." (Remember the people from whom you came.)
~ Celtic Wisdom
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - November 12 2004 : 01:49:35 AM
|
I can see your points, but I still believe that it would be a big mistake to get the government involved. As I had noted, there are more than enough pharmacists to fill prescriptions, just as there are more than enough OB's to perform abortions on demand. It all goes back to my original point, that being where does it all stop? Does one person's morality outweigh another's, just because they 'want' a certain medication and/or proceedure (rather than 'need', as in life-saving). I have already pointed out that life-saving medication and proceedures are already protected by law, what we are discussing here are 'lifestyle choice' medications and/or proceedures, and that is in a different league.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Doc M
Great Quack Healer of the Frontier
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - November 12 2004 : 10:42:56 AM
|
"Jumped up little toe rag!!!" ROFLMAO!!!! Thank you Kate! I love you!!
Morality shouldn't be legislated -- I agree. But are you not
"unofficially" forcing your beliefs on me if you won't fill my
prescription for whatever reason?? And who is going to be the
Grand Poobah of what constitutes a "lifestyle" drug, pray tell??
Who is anyone to say that birth control medication is a --
and I can't tell you how much I LOATHE this phrase -- "lifestyle
choice?" That, my friends, is between a woman and her doctor, and
no one else. Where does it end, if we go down that road? Are we
going to then classify life prolonging AIDS drugs as mere "life style"
drugs, because after all, a lot of the people who need them are
former drug addicts or homosexuals?? It's always struck me that
when certain groups scream about "you can't legislate morality" it's
always THEIR definition of morality that's that's the only one worthy
of protection. Like, let's keep government out of our lives...except
when somebody's doing something in their bedroom that we don't approve
of, or living their lives in a way we don't like, and on and on and on. Then it's "By god, we need a constitutional amendment and we need
it now!!"
My absolute opinion on this? If you are a licensed pharmacist and you
are paid to dispense medication, your personal beliefs must be left at
home. If it is too much of a "crisis of conscience" for you to do that, then it's time to look for another career. Pharmacists are
dispensers of drugs, not counselors, ministers, life style police,
or doctors.
Doc M
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Christina
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 27 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - November 12 2004 : 1:00:59 PM
|
HERE'S a possible loaded scenario if we take the pharmacist's morality scenario to another extreme: MALE WHOOPEE DRUGS. Case in point: Grandpa Joe is a 65-year-old widower. Grandpa Joe gets himself a new girlfriend down at the senior center. Grandpa Joe gets himself a prescription for Viagra. Shows up at the local pharmacy to get his prescription filled. Jane Doe, the pharmacist, knows everybody who comes into the pharmacy and sees Grandpa Joe's prescription. Tells him, "Sorry, Joe, I ain't fillin' this prescription. I know yore squirin' around a new lady friend but y'all ain't married and I don't believe in fornicatin' outside the bonds of marriage!"
Just a turnabout on the same situation. What do you think may be the reaction to male whoopee drugs getting the same scrutiny? Would it stand up to our tests of the pharmacist's rights vs. the consumers' rights? Is it just as valid to deny Viagra from Grandpa Joe as it is to deny Jane Doe her birth control if the pharmacist doesn't believe in it?
The way things unfortunately seem to go in this country in recent years, I tend to believe there would be more outcry over a man not getting his happy pills than there is for a woman not getting contraception. |
See this face? This is the face of a woman on the edge.
Whoopi Goldberg, "Jumping Jack Flash"
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Christina
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 27 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - November 12 2004 : 1:07:54 PM
|
And Doc M, your questions about government staying out of the bedroom are right on. As the years go by I find myself taking an even more libertarian attitude on this kind of thing. I don't want poobahs in Washington D.C. OR my state legislature telling me what to do in the sanctity of my own home.
When it comes right down to it, I basically want a government that's going to keep the roads and the traffic lights functioning, deliver the mail, provide decent law enforcement, provide some help for old folks and the poor, and keep terrorists from blowing up my neighborhood. I don't think government should have any say in what goes on between consenting adults behind the locked doors of a legal residence, or what consenting adults put in their bodies at the direction of their doctors. Just my general opinion. The Republicans USED to be the party of less government, but in this day and age they've morphed into this weird mix of free enterprise and more freedoms for business, but MORE government intervention in private lives. |
See this face? This is the face of a woman on the edge.
Whoopi Goldberg, "Jumping Jack Flash"
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - November 12 2004 : 8:51:55 PM
|
quote:
Doc M said: Morality shouldn't be legislated -- I agree. But are you not
"unofficially" forcing your beliefs on me if you won't fill my
prescription for whatever reason??
My point exactly, by the same vein are you not also forcing your own morality by demanding that a private business stock and sell such medicines that are non-essential to life-saving or diseases/illness treatment (Unless of course, you classify pregnancy as an illness)?
quote:
Doc M then asked: And who is going to be the
Grand Poobah of what constitutes a "lifestyle" drug, pray tell??
The 'Grand Poobahs' in question already exist, they are a group of people known as doctors (Preferably M.D.'s, but D.O.'s will suffice) who chair a panel for the FDA (Food & Drug Administration) responsible for the approval and classification of prescription drugs.
quote:
Doc M then added: Who is anyone to say that birth control medication is a --
and I can't tell you how much I LOATHE this phrase -- "lifestyle
choice?"
If a medicine is not used in the correction of an illness, mental condition, chronic disease or for emergency life-saving, then just how do you classify it? Remember what I always say, "Words mean things".
quote:
Doc M also asked: Where does it end, if we go down that road? Are we
going to then classify life prolonging AIDS drugs as mere "life style"
drugs, because after all, a lot of the people who need them are
former drug addicts or homosexuals??
My answer above should help ease your concerns...
quote:
Doc M then observed: It's always struck me that
when certain groups scream about "you can't legislate morality" it's
always THEIR definition of morality that's that's the only one worthy
of protection. Like, let's keep government out of our lives...except
when somebody's doing something in their bedroom that we don't approve
of, or living their lives in a way we don't like, and on and on and on.
I have always said the same thing about the other side, that they believe their's is the 'higher' morality, and to disagree with them is to be labled a bigot, homophope (Not a real word, but I'll use it here for reference), chauvanist, etc. That is why I suggested that the only logical solution is to let the market solve the issue. This would insure that any impact to anyones morality is kept to a minimum.
quote:
Christina then added: The way things unfortunately seem to go in this country in recent years, I tend to believe there would be more outcry over a man not getting his happy pills than there is for a woman not getting contraception.
You'll be sure to let me know when this happens, huh?
I have already noted, many times before in this thread, that one must be careful not to become that which they are criticizing. Th |
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Christina
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 27 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - November 16 2004 : 4:43:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by SgtMunro
quote:
Doc M said: Morality shouldn't be legislated -- I agree. But are you not
"unofficially" forcing your beliefs on me if you won't fill my
prescription for whatever reason??
My point exactly, by the same vein are you not also forcing your own morality by demanding that a private business stock and sell such medicines that are non-essential to life-saving or diseases/illness treatment (Unless of course, you classify pregnancy as an illness)?
quote:
Doc M then asked: And who is going to be the
Grand Poobah of what constitutes a "lifestyle" drug, pray tell??
The 'Grand Poobahs' in question already exist, they are a group of people known as doctors (Preferably M.D.'s, but D.O.'s will suffice) who chair a panel for the FDA (Food & Drug Administration) responsible for the approval and classification of prescription drugs.
quote:
Doc M then added: Who is anyone to say that birth control medication is a --
and I can't tell you how much I LOATHE this phrase -- "lifestyle
choice?"
If a medicine is not used in the correction of an illness, mental condition, chronic disease or for emergency life-saving, then just how do you classify it? Remember what I always say, "Words mean things".
quote:
Doc M also asked: Where does it end, if we go down that road? Are we
going to then classify life prolonging AIDS drugs as mere "life style"
drugs, because after all, a lot of the people who need them are
former drug addicts or homosexuals??
My answer above should help ease your concerns...
quote:
Doc M then observed: It's always struck me that
when certain groups scream about "you can't legislate morality" it's
always THEIR definition of morality that's that's the only one worthy
of protection. Like, let's keep government out of our lives...except
when somebody's doing something in their bedroom that we don't approve
of, or living their lives in a way we don't like, and on and on and on.
I have always said the same thing about the other side, that they believe their's is the 'higher' morality, and to disagree with them is to be labled a bigot, homophope (Not a real word, but I'll use it here for reference), chauvanist, etc. That is why I suggested that the only logical solution is to let the market solve the issue. This would insure that any impact to anyones morality is kept to a minimum.
quote:
Christina then added: The way things unfortunately seem to go in this country in recent years, I tend to believe there would be more outcry over a man not getting his happy pills than there is for a woman not getting contraception.
You'll be sure to let me k |
See this face? This is the face of a woman on the edge.
Whoopi Goldberg, "Jumping Jack Flash"
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
susquesus
Mad Hermit of the North Woods
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 03 2003
Status: offline
|
 Posted - November 16 2004 : 6:51:56 PM
|
I have always said the same thing about the other side, that they believe their's is the 'higher' morality, and to disagree with them is to be labled a bigot, homophope (Not a real word, but I'll use it here for reference)
-Sgt. Munro
Were you, perhaps, looking for "homophoBe"? Defined by Webster's New Universal Unabridged dictionary as:
ho-mo-phobe n. a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality. [homo(sexual)+ -phobe]
from Homophobia, defined as:
ho-mo-pho-bi-a, n. unreasoning fear or antipathy towards homosexuals and homosexuality [1955-60; Homo(sexual) + -phobia] -homophobic, adj.
As you always say, "Words mean things".
Yes, I am a geek that spends far too much time with my dictionary.  |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - November 16 2004 : 7:01:05 PM
|
That's funny susquesus, according to the Latin from my youth (A side effect of a Catholic upbringing), 'Homo' means 'same' or 'similar' and 'phobe' is a proper variation of 'phobia' or 'fear'. Now let's see, put them together and you get 'fear of the same'. Not exactly a real word, huh?
Just because some cultural marxist decides to invent a word and place it in a dictionary (As they also choose to include a good number of inaccuaricies in school textbooks), it does not make it legitimate. You gots' to do better than that...
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - November 17 2004 : 10:12:56 AM
|
Now susquesus, I think I know what your next question is going to be, "Hey Sarge, cultural marxism isn't a real word either." You are correct, it is not a real word, it is however two real words which together describe a destructive mindset in our country today.
I have mentioned in previous posts that there are very few true liberals today in politics. The title Liberal was used to describe a person of forward thinking, and a champion of individual liberty. A person who believed that the 'best government, governs the least' and that 'liberty was the solution to the human condition'. Today these people are called Liberterians, since their original and honorable title was hijacked from them by less-than honorable elements.
These elements, which had their origin on American universities in the 1930's, were cultural marxists. Starting in the 1960's, these subversive elements knew that words carry weight, and decided to define themselves as the New Left, and later stealing the title Liberal. Today, one must look hard at politicans who claim to be liberals, to determine if they really are. There are many variables, but a good example is that Senator Lieberman is a traditional liberal, whereas Senator Kerry is a cultural marxist.
I have included a very interesting article on Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism. Now, I do not agree with all of Mr. Lind's points, but the underlying message appears somewhat solid. Whatever your thoughts on it may be, I guarentee that it will get you to think about it:
The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning – the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.
We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come from? What is it?
We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or His |
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Christina
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 27 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - November 17 2004 : 3:43:23 PM
|
Sarge, I was just trying to throw the Viagra question out as a hypothetical, wondering what the reaction would be to a story about that. So far the only customers affected in this situation with pharmacists throwing their moral weight around have been women. I'd just be intrigued to see what the reaction would be -- or if there would be one -- should a pharmacist, male or female, decide to deny sexual potency drugs to a MAN when he/she had reason to know that the man was not married. Sex outside marriage is just as much a moral debate among many people as the issue of contraception and abortion is.
The other reason the issue would be interesting to me is that in some cases in recent years, it has been documented that some insurance policies, for instance, will cover a prescription for Viagra or another similar pill but won't cover, in some cases, contraception for women.
I'm not trying to accuse anybody of anything or label anybody. I just would be interested to see how this pharmacist-as-moral-policeman/woman situation would work if the primary affected individuals were males. I think if you're going to hold women to a certain moral standard men should be treated in the same way. Would the same pharmacist who refused to sell a woman the pill also refuse to sell a man a box of condoms???? Just interesting hypothetical situations.  |
See this face? This is the face of a woman on the edge.
Whoopi Goldberg, "Jumping Jack Flash"
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - November 17 2004 : 6:45:57 PM
|
quote:
Christina noted: I think if you're going to hold women to a certain moral standard men should be treated in the same way. Would the same pharmacist who refused to sell a woman the pill also refuse to sell a man a box of condoms????
Actually Christina, the comparison of birth control pills to condoms is far more accurate, than to compare birth control pills to a drug meant to correct a medical condition. In that case, I would still respect the pharmacist's morals, and take my money elsewhere. Oh, and "yes", as you can tell I do believe that a man and woman should be treated equally.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
susquesus
Mad Hermit of the North Woods
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 03 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - November 17 2004 : 11:17:20 PM
|
Now susquesus, I think I know what your next question is going to be, "Hey Sarge, cultural marxism isn't a real word either." You are correct, it is not a real word, it is however two real words which together describe a destructive mindset in our country today.
- Sgt. Munro
Yup, I thought about making that point but figured that you would have an essay to "legitimize" it as a term. Not a battle I'm interested in fighting. I will, however, continue to put stock in the folks at Websters. They know words, it's their job.
And I still say homophobia is a genuine word. -You gots' to do better than that...
 |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - November 18 2004 : 05:41:55 AM
|
I can't say if it's a word or not ... I do know it is missused to describe everyone not embracing the act of fudge-packing ... excuse the vernacular.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.45 seconds |
 |
|
Pharmacists, the Pill and religion...
