 |
| |
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
I'm not going to print the whole article; it's quite long. But the opening few paragraphs should give you the gist; the emphasis is mine:
quote:
Pharmacists' Rights at Front Of New Debate
Because of Beliefs, Some Refuse To Fill Birth Control Prescriptions
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 28, 2005; Page A01
Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.
The trend has opened a new front in the nation's battle over reproductive rights, sparking an intense debate over the competing rights of pharmacists to refuse to participate in something they consider repugnant and a woman's right to get medications her doctor has prescribed. It has also triggered pitched political battles in statehouses across the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either to protect pharmacists from being penalized -- or force them to carry out their duties.
"This is a very big issue that's just beginning to surface," said Steven H. Aden of the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom in Annandale, which defends pharmacists. "More and more pharmacists are becoming aware of their right to conscientiously refuse to pass objectionable medications across the counter. We are on the very front edge of a wave that's going to break not too far down the line."
An increasing number of clashes are occurring in drugstores across the country. Pharmacists often risk dismissal or other disciplinary action to stand up for their beliefs, while shaken teenage girls and women desperately call their doctors, frequently late at night, after being turned away by sometimes-lecturing men and women in white coats.
"There are pharmacists who will only give birth control pills to a woman if she's married. There are pharmacists who mistakenly believe contraception is a form of abortion and refuse to prescribe it to anyone," said Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York, which tracks reproductive issues. "There are even cases of pharmacists holding prescriptions hostage, where they won't even transfer it to another pharmacy when time is of the essence."
That is what happened to Kathleen Pulz and her husband, who panicked when the condom they were using broke. Their fear really spiked when the Walgreens pharmacy down the street from their home in Milwaukee refused to fill an emergency prescription for the morning-after pill.
"I couldn't believe it," said Pulz, 44, who with her husband had long ago decided they could not afford a fifth child. "How can they make that decision for us? I was outraged. At the same time, I was sad that we had to do this. But I was scared. I didn't know what we were going to do."
Supporters of pharmacists' rights see the trend as a welcome expression of personal belief. Women's groups see it as a major threat to reproductive rights and one of the latest manifestations of the religious right's growing political reach -- this time into the neighborhood pharmacy. |
The rest of the article is here, but requires registration:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2005Mar27.html
Three thoughts:
1) "Pharmacists' rights"? "Pharmacists' rights"?!?! Those whirring sounds you here are Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson and Hamilton all spinning at 78 rpm. 
2) Ironically, the market will take care of this problem in cities, but all those Red-State small towns that only have one pharmacy left -- at Walmart -- will be the real victims here. So now I'm not sure which side I'm on... 
3) To quote Hannah and Her Sisters: "If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in his name, he'd never stop throwing up. "
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
dp
Last edited by Urban Ranger on 29-03-2005 at 09:13
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
|
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gatekeeper
The first time a pharmacist refuses to fill a Viagra prescription (or transfer it) for a balding, impotent social right-wing male, the sh*t will hit the fan. Then, only then, will things change for the better.
Gatekeeper
P.S. If, in my job, I were allowed to do what pharmacists do, I could censor right- and left-wing bullshit. As it is, personal and professional code of ethics prevents me from doing that. |
Yep; based on the number of American geezers who come to the Philippines to get it on with women half (or even 1/3) their age, I'd say Viagra can be put to uses far more immoral than birth control pills.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
The solution is simple. If a pharmacist's moral beliefs won't allow him to do his job then he should lose his licence and find a different line of work. |
This especially applies to the pharmacist(s) who refused to give back the prescription to their customers.
After all this can only be callled "stealing from the customer" as the prescription is the property of the customer and not the pharmacist (unless he gives them the proper medications in exchange for it).
Therefore the pharmacist(s) who did this should, aside from losing his/their licence, also be tried for theft
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-03-2005 10:23
Arent pharmacists supposed to know what the drugs do?
|