Catholic Pharmacist?

[FarscapeGirl]

Absolutely, a hard-on is not against my beliefs.

Maybe the 55 year old man taking Viagra is using it to get sex on the side with a prostitute and cheating on his wife.

If you feel obligated to ask women personal questions before allowing yourself morally to dispense plan B, how can you be perfectly fine with any potential situation when some male comes in for ED drugs? Why would you judge the women in their choice to control their sex life (it's okay for those that are raped but not the loose ones)? Why do the men get free reign to do whatever they want sexually?

And, what I've always wondered, what if my moral belief was that 'God' didn't want you to have sex anymore when he took away your power to have a hard-on? What if I wanted to see a marriage license before dispensing Viagra? Would you support my choice to not dispense ED or only dispense it in limited settings?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Earthangel336]

Like forcing someone to do something that runs contrary to their deepest held beliefs?

Lol...

Both sides are so ridiculously hypocritical. No matter what happens, somebody's rights will get trampled. Con or pro. Somebody gets the giant cock of injustice rammed up their hind parts. None of the partisans want to admit this. If a local non-crazy physician knows that some nutjob pharmacist won't dispense...I'd bet he'd lug around some Plan B with him...or maybe write a script for progestin-only birth control so the RPh doesn't know better. Of course, the RPh probably wouldn't even carry Plan B, anyway, so the point is moot. If your ******* pharmacist won't fill your monthly birth control, mail order that ****. Problem solved.

 

[DeadliestSnatch]

Like forcing someone to do something that runs contrary to their deepest held beliefs?

Lol...

Both sides are so ridiculously hypocritical. No matter what happens, somebody's rights will get trampled. Con or pro. Somebody gets the giant cock of injustice rammed up their hind parts. None of the partisans want to admit this. If a local non-crazy physician knows that some nutjob pharmacist won't dispense...I'd bet he'd lug around some Plan B with him...or maybe write a script for progestin-only birth control so the RPh doesn't know better. Of course, the RPh probably wouldn't even carry Plan B, anyway, so the point is moot. If your ******* pharmacist won't fill your monthly birth control, mail order that ****. Problem solved.

The PATIENT is not forcing the pharmacist to sacrifice ANYTHING. That's my point.

There's really no sense in arguing with you. You've clearly demonstrated that you don't give a f!ck what women are allowed to do with their bodies, and you think accessing contraception is as simple as mail-ordering your birth control. Call me when you grow a brain. Refusing to dispense contraception has absolutely nothing to do with preventing the murder of innocent baybeez!1 It's simply another tool that religious nutjobs use to ensure that women cannot control what happens to their own bodies. I mean, why should they? Their only purpose is to make children for god's army!

Oh, also:

Somebody gets the giant cock of injustice rammed up their hind parts.

HILARIOUS. Wow, you're so clever. RAPE IS HYSTERICAL.

 

[Earthangel336]

Maybe the 55 year old man taking Viagra is using it to get sex on the side with a prostitute and cheating on his wife.

If you don't know the situations about why someone is taking plan B and BC, how can you assume that you know the situation when someone comes in for ED drugs?

What if my moral belief was that 'God' didn't want you to have sex anymore when he took away your power to have a hard-on? Would you support my choice to not dispense ED?

That is exactly what I am talking about.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

See above. No pharmacist has the right to refuse to fill a prescription for contraception, because the very notion implies that the pharmacist is allowed to demand that someone else suffer/go without for the pharmarcist's beliefs, as opposed to the pharmacist himself/herself. End of discussion.

Lol...so now you are the morality police? "End of discussion?" Like you slammed home some elaborate case in front of the jury? So your argument is essentially that a person must suspend all moral and ethical beliefs they have in order to be a pharmacist? Nah, don't buy it...

I dunno. I could see a person's point with the hypothetical pharmacy in the middle of nowhere that has probably never happened...but this is just ridiculous to me, sorry. If there are other pharmacies to go to, go to them. To insist that a person MUST uphold your personal ethical viewpoint of the universe while subverting their own seems a tad nutso to me.

It's just a **** situation where nobody is right. It is what it is. And hopefully the medical community will realize this and formulate options and protocols that are agreeable to all parties. Because....again....god help us all everyone be happy. The world would be so much better if the liberals/conservatives are suffering so we can laugh at them.

 

[WestTXisGr8]

Aren't you going to make sure he is married first and that he will use it with his wife?

No. I could care less why he uses it. I'm not the morality police.

I also could care less why a woman uses Plan B. Whether she had consentual sex or not. What color her eyes are, etc.

I was told at a very young age (7) that I would never be able to have children. Once I was married, and after MUCH trying, I had one miracle baby. To me, she was precious and was my child from the day she was conceived. I have never been able to have any more children, though I would love to have more children. So to me, a child is a very precious gift, from the moment she (or he) is conceived. That is my belief. I believe it would be wrong for me to assist someone in aborting.

However, you can do what you wish. I won't condemn you for your decision, because you have the right to your decision. I just don't have to be forced to be a part of your decision. I have no problem with telling a potential employer my position, and they can hire me or not. I am the one who has to live with my own decisions. No job, or money, is worth feeling bad about my own decisions.

 

[Earthangel336]

No. I could care less why he uses it. I'm not the morality police.

I also could care less why a woman uses Plan B. Whether she had consentual sex or not. What color her eyes are, etc.

I was told at a very young age (7) that I would never be able to have children. Once I was married, and after MUCH trying, I had one miracle baby. To me, she was precious and was my child from the day she was conceived. I have never been able to have any more children, though I would love to have more children. So to me, a child is a very precious gift, from the moment she (or he) is conceived. That is my belief. I believe it would be wrong for me to assist someone in aborting.

However, you can do what you wish. I won't condemn you for your decision, because you have the right to your decision. I just don't have to be forced to be a part of your decision. I have no problem with telling a potential employer my position, and they can hire me or not. I am the one who has to live with my own decisions. No job, or money, is worth feeling bad about my own decisions.

So your stance is based just upon your experiences?

Okay, I will respectfully disagree

 

[WestTXisGr8]

Are you just outright choosing to ignore my question/hypothetical situation (post # 270) because it exposes your hypocracy ?

I'd like to know why is it ok for you to terminate potential pregnancy in some cases and not in others, if in both cases the embryos are equally viable and human ?

Cheburashka, post #270 was not my post.

 

[DeadliestSnatch]

Lol...so now you are the morality police? "End of discussion?" Like you slammed home some elaborate case in front of the jury? So your argument is essentially that a person must suspend all moral and ethical beliefs they have in order to be a pharmacist? Nah, don't buy it...

I dunno. I could see a person's point with the hypothetical pharmacy in the middle of nowhere that has probably never happened...but this is just ridiculous to me, sorry. If there are other pharmacies to go to, go to them. To insist that a person MUST uphold your personal ethical viewpoint of the universe while subverting their own seems a tad nutso to me.

It's just a **** situation where nobody is right. It is what it is. And hopefully the medical community will realize this and formulate options and protocols that are agreeable to all parties. Because....again....god help us all everyone be happy. The world would be so much better if the liberals/conservatives are suffering so we can laugh at them.

You are an idiot. There is really no other word for the extent of your stupidity.

Maybe one day you'll realize that poor women don't all have the funds or transportation to cavort across state lines to access every pharmacy within a 150-mile radius, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[WestTXisGr8]

So your stance is based just upon your experiences?

Okay, I will respectfully disagree

Okay. I have no problem with that.

 

[Regnvejr]

I was told at a very young age (7) that I would never be able to have children. Once I was married, and after MUCH trying, I had one miracle baby. To me, she was precious and was my child from the day she was conceived. I have never been able to have any more children, though I would love to have more children. So to me, a child is a very precious gift, from the moment she (or he) is conceived. That is my belief. I believe it would be wrong for me to assist someone in aborting.

So what is right for you must be right for everybody else.

So you wouldn't prescribe Mifepristone either, obviously.

 

[DeadliestSnatch]

I'm not the morality police.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.



GOOD ONE!

 

[DeadliestSnatch]

I was told at a very young age (7) that I would never be able to have children. Once I was married, and after MUCH trying, I had one miracle baby. To me, she was precious and was my child from the day she was conceived. I have never been able to have any more children, though I would love to have more children. So to me, a child is a very precious gift, from the moment she (or he) is conceived. That is my belief. I believe it would be wrong for me to assist someone in aborting.

I absolutely hate children. Despise them in all aspects, and if I found out I was pregnant, I would abort that f!cker immediately. According to your logic, I should make that demand of everyone else. Fail.

 

[WestTXisGr8]

So what is right for you must be right for everybody else.

So you wouldn't prescribe Mifepristone either, obviously.

I wouldn't PRESCRIBE anything.

And obviously you didn't read a word of what I've said. I've said what is right for me is ONLY right for me. I'm mature enough to know that everyone has a different view of what is right for them, and I don't plan on changing that view.

 

[WestTXisGr8]

I absolutely hate children. Despise them in all aspects, and if I found out I was pregnant, I would abort that f!cker immediately. According to your logic, I should make that demand of everyone else. Fail.

It is sad that you have such an angry view. And again, I was very clear that I don't care what choice YOU make.

Good thing your parents didn't feel the same way you do.

 

[UES Girl]

Cheburashka, post #270 was not my post.

How do you answer this to a question phrased like that " Are you just outright choosing to ignore my question/hypothetical situation (post # 270) because it exposes your hypocracy ? " Any rational thinking human being would asume that after I reffered to a question and then specified where it is ( in the post 270), I'm reffering to my own post.


I know it's not your post. It's my post that I would like for you to adress. Quit trolling intentionally. I know you aren't a *****, so the fact that you are playing coy is trolling.

 

[WestTXisGr8]

I know it's not your post. It's my post that I would like for you to adress. Quit trolling intentionally. I know you aren't a *****, so the fact that you are playing coy is trolling.

You quoted ME and said I did not answer YOU regarding my post #270.

so????????????

 

[WVUPharm2007]

The PATIENT is not forcing the pharmacist to sacrifice ANYTHING. That's my point.

Well...if there is a hypothetical situation where an RPh is forced to dispense such a drug...they obviously think they are. They are refusing to dispense because, right or wrong, they equate it with murder...or whatever, hell, I don't know. But either way, someone's rights are being ignored...either the patient's by not getting it or the RPh's by being forced to dispense it against their will.

There's really no sense in arguing with you.

I'm not trying to argue. I'm trying to get a discussion involving the formulation of a common solution everyone can agree to. You're just trying to argue because you can't even admit the glaring holes in your argument.

You've clearly demonstrated that you don't give a f!ck what women are allowed to do with their bodies

Yeah. I'm a misogynist. That's "clearly" it. I could just as easily say that you are an authoritarian that is "clearly" against free religious expression.

and you think accessing contraception is as simple as mail-ordering your birth control.

Uh...if you have a legal script for monthly contraception...as I inferred...it pretty much is that easy. Just bypass the hypothetical venom-emitting Xian pharmacist and send it to a corporation. Because they worship the dollar, baby. It could be a script for a vial of KCL for a lethal injection and they'd fill it with a smile on their face and "$" signs for eyeballs. I'm just saying...the hypothetical woman in Wyoming who can't get a script for it filled...mail order exists.

Call me when you grow a brain.

Ad hominem. You are making Plato cry.

Refusing to dispense contraception has absolutely nothing to do with preventing the murder of innocent baybeez!

I agree, to be frank. Others don't. I just think that the belief of others should be respected. Quaint and old fashioned, I know. That's just the country-boy in me, I guess.

It's simply another tool that religious nutjobs use to ensure that women cannot control what happens to their own bodies. I mean, why should they? Their only purpose is to make children for god's army!

Nah, I disagree with this assertion. To imply that it has to do with an insidious plot subverting women simply because they are women is silly to me. Feminist ideology gone wacko. Sure, it affects women to the biggest part, but that's just due to the biological roll of the dice in who has to deal with the whole child birth thing. I honestly do think that they think it is against their religion to have a part in what they perceive as the death of a fertilized egg and, thus, a human. It is what it is.

HILARIOUS. Wow, you're so clever. RAPE IS HYSTERICAL.

Obviously this is metaphor...but nonetheless, I suppose you agree with me then. Someone's ethical and moral code is being raped and its sucks for one person either way.

 

[UES Girl]

You quoted ME and said I did not answer YOU regarding my post #270.

so????????????

Is English your second language ? That would explain why your comrehension skills are rather lacking (not intended as an insult but a simple statement of the fact). Where did I say that you did not answer me in post 270 ?

I said this:

Are you just outright choosing to ignore my question/hypothetical situation (post # 270) because it exposes your hypocracy ? "


Any rational thinking human being would think I'm listing my own post number in which I have asked you a question that you have ignored, not for some reason citing a number of your posts.

Note: YOU STILL DID NOT ANSWER IT AND CHOOSE TO DO EVERYTHING TO AVOID ANSWERING IT.

 

[WestTXisGr8]

The last and only thing I'm going to say, is that for ALL of us here, we should be thankful (and maybe it will make us think) that our parents did not find us dispensable, or unwanted. That were were wanted and loved, or at least born. Well, I guess I can't (and won't) speak for everyone, but at least I feel that way.

 

[FarscapeGirl]

No. I could care less why he uses it. I'm not the morality police.

I also could care less why a woman uses Plan B. Whether she had consentual sex or not. What color her eyes are, etc.

I was told at a very young age (7) that I would never be able to have children. Once I was married, and after MUCH trying, I had one miracle baby. To me, she was precious and was my child from the day she was conceived. I have never been able to have any more children, though I would love to have more children. So to me, a child is a very precious gift, from the moment she (or he) is conceived. That is my belief. I believe it would be wrong for me to assist someone in aborting.

However, you can do what you wish. I won't condemn you for your decision, because you have the right to your decision. I just don't have to be forced to be a part of your decision. I have no problem with telling a potential employer my position, and they can hire me or not. I am the one who has to live with my own decisions. No job, or money, is worth feeling bad about my own decisions.

I respect that you want more children. But, you have choices. You can use an egg donor and a surrogate mom. You could adopt a 'snowflake' fetus and carry it, if you are able to carry a child to term. Heck, you could adopt or foster any child that's already here.

Personally, I think there are ethical issues with many of the above. I know there are risks to carrying more than one fetus (often the case through in vitro fertilization). In vitro fertilization itself causes even singleton babies to have higher risks of certain diseases (like retinoblastoma) and no one is sure why. In vitro even allows infertility to be passed to children now.

I know several who believe that it is unethical to go through all the crazy things science has given us so the infertile can now be fertile. There are even those who think that having biological children is unethical because the world is overpopulated and there's so many unwanted children. Would you be okay with those people being your ob-gyns?

I would never choose in vitro for myself, especially if my partner was infertile. I think carrying more than one fetus is slightly unethical, as it increases risks to the fetus(es). But I understand that most of society is okay with this. And I'm okay with others making those choices, too. Therefore, I would not prevent someone from taking fertility drugs, getting in vitro fertilization, or carrying triplets, regardless of my own beliefs and feelings.

 

[Regnvejr]

Good thing your parents didn't feel the same way you do.

Of all the endless, lame remarks and claptrap stuff anti-choicers spew in their defense of the oppression and enslavement of women, this one is one of the dumbest.

 

[FarscapeGirl]

The last and only thing I'm going to say, is that for ALL of us here, we should be thankful (and maybe it will make us think) that our parents did not find us dispensable, or unwanted. That were were wanted and loved, or at least born. Well, I guess I can't (and won't) speak for everyone, but at least I feel that way.

Well, if I weren't here, I wouldn't know.

Hypothetically, what if I were glad that my mom got an abortion? Because, if she didn't get that abortion, she wouldn't have lived her life the way she did, meaning she might not have meant my dad, and therefore I wouldn't be sitting here today?

Actually, screw hypothetically. My friend in college told me her mom had an abortion in college. She later met my friend's dad and went on to have my friend and her brother. If her mom had made a different choice, she might not exist today. My life would be different as well.

 

[WestTXisGr8]

Cheburashka, Ok, one last thing. I did answer your question. I reread your post. Your question is something to the effect that should a woman be given (or not given) Plan B based on her circumstances (i.e. whether sex was consentual or not).

My answer was, I don't care what the pregnancy reason was, I would not feel comfortable assisting in that capacity.
(see my post #306).

 

[WVUPharm2007]

You are an idiot. There is really no other word for the extent of your stupidity.

Heh. Plato cries more.

Maybe one day you'll realize that poor women don't all have the funds or transportation to cavort across state lines to access every pharmacy within a 150-mile radius, but I won't hold my breath.

I'm not sure if you have actually been reading any of this, but I think I've demonstrated that I actually DO realize that. See, that's what you don't understand. I am empathetic towards both parties because they are both in situations that really suck for them. I imagine myself as a woman that was just raped...refused Plan B. That really sucks. I imagine myself as a devout Buddhist that is against any form if killing. Being threatened out of my life's work because of my beliefs...that really sucks. You have to realize that this issue isn't easily solved by simply screaming one of "Killing babies is EVIL!!!" or "Christians are evil people that hate women".

What would be your solution even ignoring the issues brought up by the religious about their rights? All pharmacists must dispense, period? Ok, fine. Well, old man Watters in Bobtown doesn't stock Plan B. He can't dispense it. Guess what...back to square one. Your solution solves nothing and the hypothetical poor woman still doesn't have access.

Now...how about this - do you have any constructive ideas that could help both sides of the argument come to a solution? Because that's what this issue needs, not pandering around about how the abstract moral code of one person are superior to that of another...because that's just mental masturbation.

What are the issues? Access and personal freedoms. Is there a way that access to medications and the personal freedoms of pharmacists could be both granted in a responsible manner? Honestly, can you think of anything? Break out of your shell and think out of the box...

I once hypothesized that the solution is to put a giant ass barrel of Plan B in the middle of town square in each county seat and then just leave it there...lol.

 

[Regnvejr]

Well...if there is a hypothetical situation where an RPh is forced to dispense such a drug...they obviously think they are. They are refusing to dispense because, right or wrong, they equate it with murder...or whatever, hell, I don't know.

Or if they dispense it, the elves are coming to get us all, or what the heck illogical and false beliefs they hold. "Murder," of course, is the illegal killing of a person with malice and forethought. Certainly doesn't apply to abortion, and as such having that "belief" is as irrational as any other nonsense. We are talking about professional, educated people here, and as such we must expect some professional skills and factal knowledge of them. Thta is why the states license healthcare providers of all types.

But either way, someone's rights are being ignored...either the patient's by not getting it or the RPh's by being forced to dispense it against their will.

By chosing to enter a profession where there are tasks they know they cannot perform, and then not ensuring that they stay out of specific jobs where that could be part of the job description??????????????

If it is that much of a concern to the person, then they really should stay out of retail pharmacy. IF they are ethical. When you are the professional, then it is your job to ensure that what you do benefits the patient and that you do not place yourself in a position where your quirks or beliefs or physical handicaps or whatnot will not affect your clients. That is the professional's job to ensure, not the client's!

Uh...if you have a legal script for monthly contraception...as I inferred...it pretty much is that easy. Just bypass the hypothetical venom-emitting Xian pharmacist and send it to a corporation. Because they worship the dollar, baby. It could be a script for a vial of KCL for a lethal injection and they'd fill it with a smile on their face and "$" signs for eyeballs.

So it is the pharmacist's job as the professional to deliberately put themselves into a position where they can inconvenience and harm their clients?

I'm just saying...the hypothetical woman in Wyoming who can't get a script for it filled...mail order exists.

Does that include Plan B?

Nah, I disagree with this assertion. To imply that it has to do with an insidious plot subverting women simply because they are women is silly to me. Feminist ideology gone wacko. Sure, it affects women to the biggest part, but that's just due to the biological roll of the dice in who has to deal with the whole child birth thing. I honestly do think that they think it is against their religion to have a part in what they perceive as the death of a fertilized egg and, thus, a human. It is what it is.

The politics of the pro-life/anti-choice is not against abortion, or they would have supported sex-ed and whatnot. As such, all there is left is a deliberate plan to control and oppress women into a patriarchal theocracy, the Christian version of shari'a.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

The last and only thing I'm going to say, is that for ALL of us here, we should be thankful (and maybe it will make us think) that our parents did not find us dispensable, or unwanted. That were were wanted and loved, or at least born. Well, I guess I can't (and won't) speak for everyone, but at least I feel that way.

Yet it sucks that Timothy McVeigh's parents didn't abort him...

 

[kismet]

So your stance is based just upon your experiences?

Okay, I will respectfully disagree

Why does it matter if the stance is because of a personal experience or if the stance is a sincerely held religious belief?? This makes no sense - to be fair, as much as it makes no sense for someone to say they'll dispense Plan B to a woman who was raped but not to a woman who participated in consensual sex. And this is my biggest problem with "the right to refuse" - it comes down to WHY you're treating something instead of WHAT you're treating. Do we refuse to treat a type II diabetic because the fat slob did it to himself?? Do we refuse to treat an addict or an alcoholic because they shouldn't be using so much? What about an HIV or AIDS patient? I know a man who contracted AIDS via a blood transfusion.. does he really need to explain that to every health professional he ever encounters?

There are definitely plenty of practice options for someone who doesn't feel comfortable with certain aspects of a job - it involves not taking that job. You can still be a pharmacist without dispensing OCPs or Plan B - just don't work retail, or at the very least, work at a large store where there is a second pharmacist on staff who can fill those scripts. Maybe we should say you have the right to refuse but not to interfere. You don't have to help but you can't hinder. Hand that script off to your partner, no one is gonna care, but it still has to get filled - no one has the right to get in the way of a patient's care.

 

[DeadliestSnatch]

Heh. Plato cries more.



I'm not sure if you have actually been reading any of this, but I think I've demonstrated that I actually DO realize that. See, that's what you don't understand. I am empathetic towards both parties because they are both in situations that really suck for them. I imagine myself as a woman that was just raped...refused Plan B. That really sucks. I imagine myself as a devout Buddhist that is against any form if killing. Being threatened out of my life's work because of my beliefs...that really sucks. You have to realize that this issue isn't easily solved by simply screaming one of "Killing babies is EVIL!!!" or "Christians are evil people that hate women".

What would be your solution even ignoring the issues brought up by the religious about their rights? All pharmacists must dispense, period? Ok, fine. Well, old man Watters in Bobtown doesn't stock Plan B. He can't dispense it. Guess what...back to square one. Your solution solves nothing and the hypothetical poor woman still doesn't have access.

Now...how about this - do you have any constructive ideas that could help both sides of the argument come to a solution? Because that's what this issue needs, not pandering around about how the abstract moral code of one person are superior to that of another...because that's just mental masturbation.

What are the issues? Access and personal freedoms. Is there a way that access to medications and the personal freedoms of pharmacists could be both granted in a responsible manner? Honestly, can you think of anything? Break out of your shell and think out of the box...

I once hypothesized that the solution is to put a giant ass barrel of Plan B in the middle of town square in each county seat and then just leave it there...lol.

I'm sorry, but I just don't feel any sympathy for the poor little christian pharmacists. THEY SIGNED UP FOR THIS. Come ON, no one goes into pharmacy school completely ignorant of birth control. If I can't expect my pharmacist to give me my BC, who the f!ck should I demand it of?

I'll repeat what I said earlier, since you obviously don't get it: the pharmacist is not sacrificing ANY personal freedom. There is no "gray area" of personal freedom & access here! Every pharmacist still maintains the freedom to make whatever reproductive choices s/he sees fit. On the other hand, when the pharmacist refuses to dispense birth control/EC to a woman, s/he is not sacrificing anything. S/he is simply preventing that woman from making the reproductive choices s/he sees fit, and forcing his/her morality on her. I don't force my morality on the pharmacist; s/he can choose a different f!cking profession, like one that doesn't involve DISPENSING MEDICATION TO PEOPLE WHO DEMAND IT.

 

[a runner]

Now...what ideas do you have that might be able to form a solution that both sides would find satisfactory?

How's this... Plan B's already OTC, why not allow gas stations, convenience stores, hell, whoever wants to sell it, sell it? Problem solved. I also liked your vending machine idea.

For BC, just plan ahead... mail order, find a pharmacy that sells it, etc., and if you didn't plan ahead, well then there's plan B on every street corner for that sort of thing. I'm sure the good caring people at Planned Parenthood and those who support them could help expand access in rural areas. You want something done (ie. expanded access to ANY kind of healthcare), then YOU do something about it, don't force others to do it. Go practice in a rural area instead of sitting there crying for the poor rural folk while you sit sipping lattes in NYC, LA, SF, etc. There's already a hardship on women who need to get these things in some areas. Some of you have probably never even lived outside of urban areas and don't even know what it's like. I've lived a good portion of my life in rural North and South Dakota (~15 years); I know what it's like. I guess the comforts of city life are just too great to avoid being a hypocrite and actually going and doing something about it (albeit for different reasons, but the end result is the same), all the while pointing a finger at others for not doing it. I plan on practicing rurally AND dispensing both birth control and plan B, so hopefully I can help cover the butts of the pharmacists who DON'T want to. I don't mind at all.

This way nobody has to compromise their morals, nobody has to have their reproductive rights limited. Why do some people want to go straight to the option that forces their beliefs on others and takes away others' rights before looking at other reasonable options first? Taking away rights on either side should be the LAST option. The way some of you talk, you would think your brilliant minds would be able to come up with some viable solutions instead of going for the death strike on others' rights.

 

[DeadliestSnatch]

you have the right to refuse but not to interfere. You don't have to help but you can't hinder. Hand that script off to your partner, no one is gonna care, but it still has to get filled - no one has the right to get in the way of a patient's care.

THIS. When I go into a pharmacy, I have the right to my birth control, regardless of who dispenses it. Simply refusing to give it to me is absolutely unethical.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Or if they dispense it, the elves are coming to get us all, or what the heck illogical and false beliefs they hold. "Murder," of course, is the illegal killing of a person with malice and forethought. Certainly doesn't apply to abortion, and as such having that "belief" is as irrational as any other nonsense. We are talking about professional, educated people here, and as such we must expect some professional skills and factal knowledge of them. Thta is why the states license healthcare providers of all types.

It's what they believe. I'm not one to claim that I am the master of the universe and say what people can and can't practice. Honestly, I think the definition of "life" is debatable, to play devil's advocate. It's rather arbitrarily drawn right now. It's much more a philosophical question, IMO.

By chosing to enter a profession where there are tasks they know they cannot perform, and then not ensuring that they stay out of specific jobs where that could be part of the job description??????????????If it is that much of a concern to the person, then they really should stay out of retail pharmacy. IF they are ethical. When you are the professional, then it is your job to ensure that what you do benefits the patient and that you do not place yourself in a position where your quirks or beliefs or physical handicaps or whatnot will not affect your clients. That is the professional's job to ensure, not the client's!
So it is the pharmacist's job as the professional to deliberately put themselves into a position where they can inconvenience and harm their clients?

A lot of repetition, but I do get your point. And that's a good point in respect to the hypothetical remote pharmacist...but it wouldn't apply to the pharmacist working at Baby Jesus's Drug Emporium in the middle of Boston because the 24 Hr CVS is down the street. Like I said...it's an issue of gray areas, unfortunately. Perhaps there should be different law for different practice areas? Wouldn't that be a solution that would be agreeable to everyone?

Does that include Plan B?

Of course not, hence I precluded it with the word "monthly."

The politics of the pro-life/anti-choice is not against abortion, or they would have supported sex-ed and whatnot. As such, all there is left is a deliberate plan to control and oppress women into a patriarchal theocracy, the Christian version of shari'a.

Nah...don't buy it. Sorry. It's about the killin' of hypothetical babies, pure and simple. If men as the culturally dominant sex had the wombs instead of women, I'd wager the same argument would be made. Making it an argument of misogyny doesn't fly for me. Though I could see where one would think that.

 

[UES Girl]

Why does it matter if the stance is because of a personal experience or if the stance is a sincerely held religious belief?? This makes no sense - to be fair, as much as it makes no sense for someone to say they'll dispense Plan B to a woman who was raped but not to a woman who participated in consensual sex. And this is my biggest problem with "the right to refuse" - it comes down to WHY you're treating something instead of WHAT you're treating. Do we refuse to treat a type II diabetic because the fat slob did it to himself?? Do we refuse to treat an addict or an alcoholic because they shouldn't be using so much? What about an HIV or AIDS patient? I know a man who contracted AIDS via a blood transfusion.. does he really need to explain that to every health professional he ever encounters?

There are definitely plenty of practice options for someone who doesn't feel comfortable with certain aspects of a job - it involves not taking that job. You can still be a pharmacist without dispensing OCPs or Plan B - just don't work retail, or at the very least, work at a large store where there is a second pharmacist on staff who can fill those scripts. Maybe we should say you have the right to refuse but not to interfere. You don't have to help but you can't hinder. Hand that script off to your partner, no one is gonna care, but it still has to get filled - no one has the right to get in the way of a patient's care.

It's only worse if it's a stance of personal experience. It means she imposes her personal tragedy on unaware patients.

Texas girl, while I do personally feel sorry for the hardships you had to overcome in life in your quest to have a child and my heart goes out to your tragedy, I'm deeply disturbed by how your personal experience has shaped such rigid, even sick in my opion, view on contraception such as not dispensing plan B to rape victims.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I'm sorry, but I just don't feel any sympathy for the poor little christian pharmacists. THEY SIGNED UP FOR THIS. Come ON, no one goes into pharmacy school completely ignorant of birth control. If I can't expect my pharmacist to give me my BC, who the f!ck should I demand it of?

Ok, that's fine. But what harm would be if they opened an overtly labeled pharmacy that caters to Christians/Buddhist/whatever in a major city with other 24 hour pharmacies around? Could they not practice there?

I'll repeat what I said earlier, since you obviously don't get it: the pharmacist is not sacrificing ANY personal freedom. There is no "gray area" of personal freedom & access here! Every pharmacist still maintains the freedom to make whatever reproductive choices s/he sees fit. On the other hand, when the pharmacist refuses to dispense birth control/EC to a woman, s/he is not sacrificing anything. S/he is simply preventing that woman from making the reproductive choices s/he sees fit, and forcing his/her morality on her. I don't force my morality on the pharmacist; s/he can choose a different f!cking profession, like one that doesn't involve DISPENSING MEDICATION TO PEOPLE WHO DEMAND IT.

I don't think this argument holds up philosophically for me. Again, I really do think that one person or the other gets the shaft and that's rather grievous. IMO, the RPh IS sacrificing personal choice. Just the way I see it. But this is all abstract thinking anyway...there is no right or wrong. There is nothing wrong with thinking you are right about what you believe. I respect that.

 

[FarscapeGirl]

I think I would maybe be okay with a pharmacist refusing to dispense BC and/or plan B (or a practitioner not prescribing them) if they also refused the following:

Fertility drugs. If 'God' wants you pregnant, he'll make you pregnant.

Erectile dysfunction drugs. If 'God' wants you to have sex, he'll allow you to physically have sex.

As well, he/she should be against the rhythm method, as having sex during certain times of the month would still enable the production of an embry, but the embryo would not attach to the uterus because it was fertilized too late.

However, I've yet to meet anyone like that. (And in all actuality, I'd still have issues with them, since they'd be reducing the standard of care for many patients). Since people are usually only against Plan B and maybe BC, that is why I believe it's b/c we're in a patriarchal society that wants to refuse women the right to control their fertility.

 

[DeadliestSnatch]

Ok, that's fine. But what harm would be if they opened an overtly labeled pharmacy that caters to Christians/Buddhist/whatever in a major city with other 24 hour pharmacies around? Could they not practice there?



I don't think this argument holds up philosophically for me. Again, I really do think that one person or the other gets the shaft and that's rather grievous. IMO, the RPh IS sacrificing personal choice. Just the way I see it. But this is all abstract thinking anyway...there is no right or wrong. There is nothing wrong with thinking you are right about what you believe. I respect that.

I can't force you to accept my stance on this issue, but after reading all of your comments in this thread, I do think you're a well-intentioned person.

However, I have to stress that for the majority of pro-lifers, abortion is NOT just about killin' babies. It is inextricably linked to the way they view and value women. I'm just too tired to debate that right now, but the evidence is out there, I assure you.

 

[a runner]

But then, there is no child until after birth, anti-choice revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding.

Can you point to some specific scientific evidence that determines that "life" begins when a child is born with the ability to breathe and actually breathes the first breath (this is one legal definition for the transferring of rights to the child)? Since you seem to believe that every answer in life can be determined scientifically, I am extremely curious to see the obvious evidence behind this statement and the drawing of a clear line at this specific point rather than any other.

 

[a runner]

Hah hah. That's one possible outcome.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

good rebuttal.

Yeah, I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this issue, but you've earned my respect and I see where you are coming from. Just don't agree, that's all.

 

[kismet]

A lot of repetition, but I do get your point. And that's a good point in respect to the hypothetical remote pharmacist...but it wouldn't apply to the pharmacist working at Baby Jesus's Drug Emporium in the middle of Boston because the 24 Hr CVS is down the street. Like I said...it's an issue of gray areas, unfortunately. Perhaps there should be different law for different practice areas? Wouldn't that be a solution that would be agreeable to everyone?

It should be workable. Key word - should. But no matter where you draw the line, someone's going to get stuck in that "gray" area. If you say, you don't have to dispense as long as there's another pharmacy that will within x miles - how do you decide what x is? Is it within a 60 minute bus ride, a 30 minute car drive, a 10 minute walk?

And then, does someone have to be in charge of making sure that there is, in fact, a pharmacy within x miles that will dispense? And do companies have to share their work schedules so that we can make sure that we don't end up with three "refusers" all on shift at the same time at three different pharmacies? Do we have to create a registry - do you have to register for the right to refuse?? (If there are too many people registered in your city already, do we say "sorry, no more!") It gets complicated fast. Ultimately someone still ends up screwed and it usually ends up being the poor/minority, and the whole point of regulation should be to protect that group.

I don't disagree with you; it'd be nice if a middle ground could be found so that both sides' rights could (mostly) be preserved. And I don't think it's as big a problem in bigger cities and perhaps across a lot of the US. But we can't let the rural/poor/minority get screwed over. Unfortunately, as is the norm in politics, few people are willing to walk that middle ground and most people end up polarized and yelling insults at either extreme and the issue goes nowhere.

 

[a runner]

So you are saying to hell with rural America, then?

Wow, this thread is hot tonight, the previous posts got buried pages back today, almost forgot about this question. Most of my answer was in the response to WVU, but to answer your question, no, I'm not saying that. There are other options to make things available rurally, and if none of those options work, THEN and only then force the pharmacist to dispense (and just in that specific area), not the other way around.

 

[a runner]

Do we have to create a registry - do you have to register for the right to refuse?? (If there are too many people registered in your city already, do we say "sorry, no more!") It gets complicated fast.

Actually, that's how it works in the military. Conscientious objectors must register their objection when they register for the selective service or as soon as they form their belief.

 

[Regnvejr]

Nah...don't buy it. Sorry. It's about the killin' of hypothetical babies, pure and simple.

Also sophistry. "hypothetical babies"? Like we are hypothetical corpses? "Hypothetical," "unborn," "children," all that crap. All to falsely give imagery of the 5-year-old bouncing on grandmother's knee. It is a cell, a zygote, perhaps an embryo when talking abortions themselves, and occasionally a fetus. The rest is emotional histrionics designed for misleading. Trickery to divert from the enslaving and controlling fate of the women falling in the clutches of the fundie theocrats.

If men as the culturally dominant sex had the wombs instead of women, I'd wager the same argument would be made.

In your dream. To plagiarize/paraphrase an old pro-choice point, If men could get pregnant, abortion would be sacrosanct.

It IS about misogyny and the fundies dying grasp at trying to control women, a control they lost decades ago and just can't accept. THAT'S why Army-Of-God nuts like Paul Hill murders physicians and Eric Rudolph blew up abortion clinics, a gay bar and the Atlanta Olympics. Right-wing loon theocrats.

As long as you let them run the anti-choice agenda of hate and oppression, there will be nothing gained from your side ever.

There are simple and easy ways to reduce the number of abortions to more like Western Europe, but the anti-choice movement solidly reject these measures, showing that the claim about it being about abortions is a flat-out lie. It has nothing to do with fewer abortions, it has with pregnancy being a tool to oppress and control women.

YOU try to push sex-ed, contraception, financial/educational support of pregnant women, subsidized child care or any of the many measures that are shown effective in reducing the abortion rates, and you see the anti-choice elites having a fit.

Because that contradicts their agenda of a patriarchal theocracy.

So don't give me the silly "its about the bebeeeeez junk. That hypocritical claim has been sunk decades ago.

Making it an argument of misogyny doesn't fly for me. Though I could see where one would think that.

I don't care if it flies with you. It has been demonstrated through anti-choice actions for many decades. At this point, it is YOU who need to show us that it is NOT about oppression of women.

 

[WestTXisGr8]

Just a thought...

Why are most hospitals allowed to deny service based on ability to pay?

Why aren't ALL surgeons REQUIRED to perform a sex change operation on anyone who wants one. Not only will they NOT perform a sex change operation, when you find one of the handful of doctors in the world that will perform one, you go through extensive screening for them to determine if you should really have one. (Not speaking from experience here, just from what I've seen and read about.) What right do they have to determine that for you?
So if I wanted a sex-change operation, my rights are being trampled by every surgeon in America except one or two.
And if you don't have the money to pay for it - forget it. So what about those poor rural people who believe they are the wrong gender? NOBODY is catering to them!

And I'm sure we can all thing of many, many more examples of this type of thing.

Why is it OK if it's based on something other than morals? Morals are the only thing that seems to get most people hot. There are probably better things to worry about than the handful of moral pharmacists.

 

[Regnvejr]

I think I would maybe be okay with a pharmacist refusing to dispense BC and/or plan B (or a practitioner not prescribing them) if they also refused the following:

Fertility drugs. If 'God' wants you pregnant, he'll make you pregnant.

Erectile dysfunction drugs. If 'God' wants you to have sex, he'll allow you to physically have sex.

And really all medical treatment. IF God wanted you well, he would have made you that way.

There really is no good reason other than (a) I like to control women, or (b) I bought into the lies of those who want to control women.

 

[Regnvejr]

Can you point to some specific scientific evidence that determines that "life" begins when a child is born with the ability to breathe and actually breathes the first breath (this is one legal definition for the transferring of rights to the child)?

Actually, "life" began about 4.8 bill years ago and have been endlessly continued since. But the existence of a person ( legal definition) starts at birth.

Consistent with the Torah talking about Nemeth, the first breath.

And consistent with the reality of individual function, homeostasis etc beginning when the umbilical cord ceases function.

Since you seem to believe that every answer in life can be determined scientifically,

Hmm, I am at a loss as to where I claimed that.

I am extremely curious to see the obvious evidence behind this statement and the drawing of a clear line at this specific point rather than any other.

Well, birth is the time of individual existence.

But you miss the point, actually. Because the zygote/embryo/fetus really are not central to the discussion. The woman and her right to her own body, THAT is the central point. After all, a person certainly does not have the right to use her (or your) bodily resources against her (your) will. Nobody can force you to give blood against your will, nobody can force her to give up a kidney against her will. Our bodily resources are ours. So when persons don't have that right, even if it means their death, then certainly neither do the products of conception.

That is the central point, and the only point that matters.

So if you want fewer abortions, then it is time to stop forcing it on the woman and rather look at how you can support and help her so she doesn't feel she need to abort.

THAT is the point the anti-choice movement has always refused, and why it is clear that it is not about the embryo, but rather about controlling the woman.

 

[esduhovny]

Hi everyone!

I'm a college student working on a research paper about this and I wanted to gather some opinions to write about in my paper.

If you are a pharmacist or if you are not and just give your opinion it would help me!

Below are the questions! Feel free to write your responses here or to message me!

Thanks,
E


1. What are your thoughts on Plan B being made available without a prescription?


2. What are your thoughts on the FDA’s decision to allow 17 year olds to buy Plan B without a prescription as well?


3. If a 17-year-old female came to buy Plan B, what would you ask her before allowing her to purchase the Plan B?


4. How about for an 18-25 year old female?


5. How about for a 25-35 year old female?


6. How about for a female over age 35?


7. Would you sell Plan B to a male? Would it matter how old he was?- please explain



8. Have you sold Plan B to anyone in the last two years? Feel free to elaborate.

 

[a runner]

Actually, "life" began about 4.8 bill years ago and have been endlessly continued since. But the existence of a person ( legal definition) starts at birth.

Consistent with the Torah talking about Nemeth, the first breath.

And consistent with the reality of individual function, homeostasis etc beginning when the umbilical cord ceases function.

I appreciate your response, but I was looking for something a bit more substantive scientifically other than simply "the existence of a person starts at birth" because they have "individual function" and can attain homeostasis on their own. I was wondering if there was more to it than that, but I suppose science can't really provide an answer as to when a mass of cells belonging to an H. sapien attains rights, it's more of a social issue. Besides, science can't answer the question as to whether or not masses of tissue have souls or not, so it can't really be expected to say when those souls (if they exist) begin to exist.

Well, birth is the time of individual existence.

But you miss the point, actually. Because the zygote/embryo/fetus really are not central to the discussion. The woman and her right to her own body, THAT is the central point. After all, a person certainly does not have the right to use her (or your) bodily resources against her (your) will. Nobody can force you to give blood against your will, nobody can force her to give up a kidney against her will. Our bodily resources are ours. So when persons don't have that right, even if it means their death, then certainly neither do the products of conception.

That is the central point, and the only point that matters.

Your central point really doesn't involve any science, it is more of a human rights discussion. Not that there's anything wrong or that I disagree necessarily, just making that distinction.

So if you want fewer abortions, then it is time to stop forcing it on the woman and rather look at how you can support and help her so she doesn't feel she need to abort.

I completely agree. I would also like to see abortions reduced and would much rather have women avoid becoming pregnant with unwanted pregnancies through whatever means she prefers with the help and support of others. I agree it is an individual decision when and if and how to go about having children.

THAT is the point the anti-choice movement has always refused, and why it is clear that it is not about the embryo, but rather about controlling the woman.

Well, just because some or most refuse the methods of reducing women becoming pregnant with unwanted pregnancies doesn't mean that everyone who is opposed to abortion does. Speaking in such absolutes about groups ignores the middle ground and gray areas.

 

[slight365]

So if a Buddhist doesn't fill a script for Plan B and tells a guy to go across the street to another pharmacy to get it filled, he is as bad as a psychotic Iranian that beats women.

Yeah.

A Buddhist that doesn't fill is just as bad. However, I have worked with tons of Buddhists that do their jobs.

As far as the Iranian that beats women, there is also different levels. They don't go from 0-60 in keeping women as objects. They practice a lot of other types of suppression of women to maintain their own high position in society.

If you guys think it's so ok to have an unwanted child, how come you're not chipping in or creating an organization so you can get together and take care of them?

 

[Regnvejr]

I appreciate your response, but I was looking for something a bit more substantive scientifically other than simply "the existence of a person starts at birth" because they have "individual function" and can attain homeostasis on their own. I was wondering if there was more to it than that, but I suppose science can't really provide an answer as to when a mass of cells belonging to an H. sapien attains rights, it's more of a social issue. Besides, science can't answer the question as to whether or not masses of tissue have souls or not, so it can't really be expected to say when those souls (if they exist) begin to exist.

Quite. A soul has never been scientifically documented to begin with. And "person" is not a scientifically-defined term, it is a legal term. As for the mass of cells with H. sapiens genes, that could be a lot of things. heck, a hydatidiform mole could fit this, and I doubt anybody would call that a baby or a person even though it is formed from conception.

Your central point really doesn't involve any science, it is more of a human rights discussion. Not that there's anything wrong or that I disagree necessarily, just making that distinction.

But then, I never claimed that it did. So I'm not sure of your point here.

I completely agree. I would also like to see abortions reduced and would much rather have women avoid becoming pregnant with unwanted pregnancies through whatever means she prefers with the help and support of others. I agree it is an individual decision when and if and how to go about having children.

So that's a good start. There really is a massive area of common ground in the area of unwanted pregnancies.

Well, just because some or most refuse the methods of reducing women becoming pregnant with unwanted pregnancies doesn't mean that everyone who is opposed to abortion does. Speaking in such absolutes about groups ignores the middle ground and gray areas.

The political powers in the anti-choice movement to NOT occupy that gray area. As long as the anti-choice movement allows these groups to speak for them and make the policy decisions, then the absolutes are ruling.

These groups are NOT about actual abortions, they are about theocracy, the Dominionist movement and the control of women. I missed where the pro-life people vehemently disagreed with the leaders and cleaned house. So the reality is that the movement against abortions is a movement designed specifically to control and oppress women under a patriarchal theocracy.

When the pro-lifers lie down with dogs, the can expect to wake up with fleas.

 

[Jdario86]

Just a thought...

Why are most hospitals allowed to deny service based on ability to pay?

Why aren't ALL surgeons REQUIRED to perform a sex change operation on anyone who wants one. Not only will they NOT perform a sex change operation, when you find one of the handful of doctors in the world that will perform one, you go through extensive screening for them to determine if you should really have one. (Not speaking from experience here, just from what I've seen and read about.) What right do they have to determine that for you?
So if I wanted a sex-change operation, my rights are being trampled by every surgeon in America except one or two.
And if you don't have the money to pay for it - forget it. So what about those poor rural people who believe they are the wrong gender? NOBODY is catering to them!

And I'm sure we can all thing of many, many more examples of this type of thing.

Why is it OK if it's based on something other than morals? Morals are the only thing that seems to get most people hot. There are probably better things to worry about than the handful of moral pharmacists.

Let's get one thing crystal clear between alternative life-styles (gender identity, homosexuality) and religious moral beliefs:

-People can choose their religious beliefs.
-People CANNOT choose their gender and sexual orientation.

If there is a religion that condemns people and people choose to believe that religion, then they choose to condemn certain type of people. Gender is not a choice and sexual orientation is not a choice. Homosexuals DON'T voluntarily choose an alternative lifestyle to be criticized and ridiculed by ignorant people. Women DON'T choose to be ridiculed by mysogynism. Life would be much easier if everyone was a straight male, but it's not. The reason why i get frustrated with people having religious morals is that they use religion as premise to condemn different people.

If your last statement is intended to support moral beliefs in a clinical professional setting, then I question your integrity as an aspiring clinician. Because clearly, your beliefs takes precedence over your patients.