|
Pharmacists Playing God
Houston Chronicle | Submitted by: Moo the Cow
"Walgreen Co. said it has put four Illinois pharmacists in the St. Louis area on unpaid leave for refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception in violation of a state rule." ... "Walgreen policy says pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions to which they are morally opposed _ except where state law prohibits _ but they must take steps to have the prescription filled by another pharmacist or store."
|
From: ciaochowbella [I didn't do it and I wasn't there when it happened]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 07:32
If you don't have a uterus, you don't get a say on abortion.
From: marginallawyer [Just Kick My Ass Off This Planet]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 07:58
Most professionally licensed folk operate under a set of ethical guidelines. These guys will win against Walgreens because they are under no duty to comply with rulings adverse to their belief; especially when there would necessarily be other pharmacists who would fill the prescription. There is no such thing as an "emergency" prescription.
From: athenaea24 [chapter read and lesson learned]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 07:59
I bet they have no problem filling viagra perscriptions...or pointing people in the right direction for K-Y jelly and comdoms... I wonder if they allow cashiers who are vegetarians to refuse to ring up potted meat food product...
From: bigcelticbitch [fighting the good fight]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 08:08
I wonder if they consider it equally unnatural and a "violation of natural laws" to fill a prescription for Cialis or Viagra. After all, if God wants you to fuck, He will let you get it up. Adds a whole new meaning to "Rock of Ages". This is not about religion, this is not about God, this is about narcissism and denial of rights with the end result being the subjugation of women. If the women who they do not fill prescriptions for end up pregnant, are they going to support the child? I didn't think so. George Carlin said it best about these people "If you're preborn, you're fine, if you're preschool, you're fucked." I don't care about the implantation interference, ok? A zygote is not the same as an infant, I don't care if it would eventually go on to be an infant. That is like saying that Iams is dog shit, because if the natural process is followed, it will eventually be dog shit, the fact that it isn't now, doesn't matter. All this bullshit is getting the support of Dubya, however, I have noticed that he only has twin girls, I seriously doubt that they oppose birth control *that* strongly, he is just bowing to the Christian right extremists. These people cannot see the forest for the trees, if there is easier access to both birth control and abortions, then there will be less of those pesky out of wedlock births and crack babies they love to bitch about so much. I know they always push abstainence(sp?), however, people are one species that is hardwired to love to fuck. No matter what the Bible or anyone else says, people are never going to stop fucking, married or not. My great-grandmother worked in a "secret" wing of a Tennessee hospital where the elite sent their knocked up daughters to discreetly bear and get rid of their bastard children. Amazing how these were probably the very same people complaining about promiscuity and the decline of morality. The problem that is most responsible for the decline of our society is a combination of greed and hypocrisy. It is helped along by a big dose of grandstanding for Jesus.
From: ouroboros
[Devolution]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 08:29
What most people, including these pharmacists, fail to understand about the 'morning after pill' is that it is in no way related to abortions. The function of the pill is to prevent the release of an egg from the ovary, thus preventing fertilization; or to prevent the embedding of a ferilized zygote in the uterus. Emergency CONTRACEPTION. The zygote thing is probably drawing the most criticism, but personally I don't consider that an issue. [wikipedia.org]
From: mysticmommy
Date: 3-Dec-2005 09:20
Again, I will say that this should be available OVER THE COUNTER!!!! No one needs to involve any of these self righteous pharmacists in the process. This medication is going to PREVENT abortions by PREVENTING the unplanned/unwanted pregnancy to begin with. This stuff really pisses me off, because these are the same assholes who happily fill the RX for Viagra and Cialis, and order those "medical devices" for pumping up a limp noodle.
From: krazymissi [krazy missi]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 09:43
Congratulations bigcelticbitch [fighting the good fight]! You win the dumbass of the morning award!!!! You somehow managed to not only have the longest speech but the one that made the least amount of sense. You kept in true form with other recipients by putting Bush's name in there somewhere. Possibly? Anyway HERES TO YOU!!! Dont worry other tards theres still a chance you can win tomorrow. I will announce the winner at that time.
From: gargoyle1
Date: 3-Dec-2005 09:48
OK, if they don't want to give em the pill, make them raise the little unwanted bastards, otherwise, fire their worthless asses for not doing their jobs. If they find this part of the job objectionable, then they don't need to be working in the job to begin with.
From: patmccock
[patmccock]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 10:14
What about those sonofabitchin Dr's who write the prescriptions? And the cock-sucking nurse's who work in the Dr's office's? The insurance companies that pay for these Dr. visits and prescriptions? What about the pharmaceutical companies that make these offensive pills? What about the car companies that manufacture the cars that these vile women use to drive to the Dr.'s office to get the prescription and then to the pharmacy to fill their prescriptions and then to their boyfriend/spouse/whatever's house to have more sexual intercourse. Sorry folks. I have adhd and ocd. but at least my medication isn't morally wrong, yet.
From: venatius [Squid]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 10:14
All this has me wanting to pursue a medical license so I can try to refuse treatment to every patient that comes my way because it "violates my moral beliefs". Since that's apparently okay and all.
From: petebest [petebest]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 10:22
This is stupid. You cannot suspend pharmacists for not prescribing drugs that they are morally opposed to. I don't care what the drug is, if they are opposed they should be able to tell the person to go elsewhere. This is akin to forcing a doctor to perform an abortion just because he has the proper license and the proper training. Professionals, especially informed men of science, should have the right to only offer services that they feel morally and ethically confident in.
From: causticbitch [Jane Bong]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 10:51
krazymissi, if you can't understand the passage that you posted in response to, you need to go back to grade school and get an education. It seemed pretty straightforward to me, and made complete sense. What are you not getting about it?
From: robwrigley
Date: 3-Dec-2005 10:56
Yeah, you can. It's called 'failure to preform one's job'. If the these folks don't feel they are morally able to carry out the responsibilities of their job, they should resign. There is nothing forcing them to accept the job in the first place. They can work at a no-abortion-pill pharmacy. Or go dig ditches. There are lots of other jobs out there. Rob
From: azdollarbill [Jim Jones]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 11:17
Actually, any company can fire any employee for any reason, or for no reason. The only exception, would be age,handicap or racial discrimination. That's it kiddies. Those pharm guys can file all the suits they want, they will not win, period. Oh yeah, whistle blowers are supposed to be protected too, at least in theory. In actuality, well, just look at the FBI translator case.
From: brainspore [Brainspore]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 11:44
This "personal beliefs" thing is bullshit. Of course a pharmacist who doesn't believe in birth control doesn't have to sell it- all he has to do is open his own goddamn pharmacy. I wouldn't get a job at McDonald's if I thought it was morally wrong to sell animal flesh, and if I did I wouldn't act all surprised when I got fired for refusing to sell a customer a Big Mac.
From: shtfrbns [Shtfrbns]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 12:09
Any Pharmacist that is not willing to fill all valid prescriptions should not be a pharmacist, END OF STORY. Does anyone think that a doctor who is a Jehova's Witness should be able to refuse to give blood transfusions to people?
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 12:11
Actually, any company can fire any employee for any reason, or for no reason. The only exception, would be age,handicap or racial discrimination. That's it kiddies. Those pharm guys can file all the suits they want, they will not win, period. Oh yeah, whistle blowers are supposed to be protected too, at least in theory. In actuality, well, just look at the FBI translator case. Actually, that depends on the state, but I bet thats true in Mo. I can't find a list of "at will" states, but even "at will" states have to abide by META [about.com] and on the second page, you will find a list of federal laws which override state "at will" common laws. I wonder if they allow cashiers who are vegetarians to refuse to ring up potted meat food product... I doubt it. Since they're Walgreens employees they, like the pharmacists, they have to do what the company tells them to do, according to their contracts. However, the cashier is welcome to open up a vegetarian store and refuse to sell anything she wants, as are the pharmacists.
From: petebest [petebest]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 13:14
Most of these arguments make a lot of sense for burger jockey's or check out clerks who suddenly feel morally opposed to the sale of meat or a hair product that has been tested on animals. Fine. go get a new job, or start your own business. However the key difference here is that we are dealing with highly educated professionals. That distinction, being professionals, makes all the difference in the world. These are men and women, many of whom have probably been working at Walgreens for years before these aborticides have been available, have well grounded concerns about this medication. They are educated in the appropriate science necessary to understand what these drugs do, and are expected to act in their professional capacities when making decisions that affect their clients. Certainly Walgreens can fire them, and definatly a state law has been enacted that empowers Walgreens to do so, but the question truly is whether that is right or even just. This is a common conflict with activist oriented positive law, as the one in question certainly appears to be. That is why I used the previous example of a hospital forcing a doctor to perform an abortion simply because he has the appropriate license and training. Would that hospital be justified in firing that doctor if he refused to comply for moral or ethical reasons? Would it be just for a state to undermine that doctors professional opinion and moral obligations by passing a law that forces him to apply his professional training in a manner that that doctor finds morally repugnant? We as a society place a great deal of faith and respect in men and women who undergo specialized training that qualify them as professionals. To impose tasks on them that they find morally questionable, and justifiably so, is improper. To further pass laws that allow them to be fired for exercising their professional opinions is injust, and undermines the autonomy that allows for, and ensures the high quality of medical care available in this country.
From: frankrizzo
[Frank Rizzo]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 13:25
Every home the world over should have an emergency contraception kit hanging on the wall right next to the fire extinguisher. And if Jay-sus wants to raise other peoples' mistakes, he can send forth his noble, heavenly Christian pharmacists to do his will. Fuckers... Do your job or find another one.
From: doem [doem]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 13:27
The employees do not have a case. I think people are misinterpreting the law. That whole ethical principle thing is only good if he or she thought was going to be used for things other then the intended purpose. For instance if a person comes in with 8 different pain medication scripts from 8 different doctors. or if the pharmacist thought the prescribing doctor was acting illegally in some way. But in this case the medication in question is legal in the state and was being used for its authorized purpose. Walgreen’s decided that they would sell that pill and hired the pharmacist to sell the things they had in stock. If the pharmacist decides for some reason no to do this he should A) get a new job B)move to another state C)or lobby to get the laws changed but sitting on his kiester and then arbitrarily deciding when and how he wants to do his job will not give him a valid complaint
From: blissfulgirl
[~^-^~]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 13:33
From: ciaochowbella [I didn't do it and I wasn't there when it happened]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 07:32
If you don't have a uterus, you don't get a say on abortion. I call bullshit on this comment! IMO If men are expected to be held accountable for children via court ordered child support, etc, then they need to have some say about whether or not there is a child to be supported in the first place. It should be a mutual decision between the man and woman involved. If a woman does not want to allow the man to have any say in the pregnancy or termination of it, then she needs to be prepared to absolve him of his parental rights or responsibility for any future financial support. As for the pharmacists in the article...if you aren't willing to do your job as required by law then you need to quit and go do something else or move to an area that allows you to behave in this way. It's that simple.
From: brainspore [Brainspore]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 13:38
petebest said: "These are men and women, many of whom have probably been working at Walgreens for years before these aborticides have been available, have well grounded concerns about this medication. They are educated in the appropriate science necessary to understand what these drugs do..." That is more than can be said for you, considering that you called them "aborticides." Apparently you haven't been paying enough attention to this debate to realize that abortion drugs which end pregnancy are not at issue here. The "emergency contraception" drugs sold at Walgreen's do not terminate a developing embryo, or kill off a single sperm for that matter. They prevent pregnancy from taking place in the first place, not unlike the condoms that these pharmacists don't seem to have any problems selling. Preventing unwanted pregnancies reduces the number of abortions performed, so any rational pro-life activist should support the use of contraceptives.
From: jobbyjim [darrius sphincter]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 13:38
more of your typical Catholic dogma. Along with pedophile priests, overpopulating Mexicans, you name it. Phuck 'em.
From: wulfgartheblack [Wulfgar the Black]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 13:38
Calling these pill counters 'men of science' is stretching it a bit. They are workers refusing to fill legal orders from a licensed doctor based solely on their own prejudice - not medical science - not concern for the patient. The McDonald's worker analog is perfect.
From: rocco
[I'm the funny man!]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 13:40
The four cited religious or moral objections to filling prescriptions for the morning-after pill... Yeah, well I have moral objections to sharing the planet with fuckheads like this, but somehow I seem to manage, as difficult as that may often be.
From: doem [doem]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 13:44
and another thing, how do people against abortion find themselves on rotten . com? I mean pictures of dead people and guys getting tea bagged just doesn’t seem to jive with what pro lifers would be into
From: petebest [petebest]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 13:54
In response to a few comments to my previous posting: 1. These are aborticides as much as they are contraceptives. While they do have a contraceptive use (preventing pregnancy) they also have abortive characteristic as well (flushing zygotes from the uterus). Now I concede that there is a debate in the scientific community over whether life begins at fertilization or implantation. However, pharmacists are highly trained doctors of the pharmacological sciences, and are understandably concerned by the abortive tendencies of these pills. 2. These are not pill counters, modestly trained pharmacy technicians actually count the pills. Pharmacists are highly trained, hold advanced doctorate degrees, and are well trained in the biological sciences. As such, they, as much as the doctors who prescribe these drugs, have the duty to exercise their professional opinion in the use of these drugs. In fact pharmacists routinely supersede medical physicians' authority by refusing to fill prescriptions that are potentially dangerous to the patient's health.
From: 8soft [Chest Ironslab]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 13:55
Since you can now refinance your home the christian way,why not have pharmacies that only fill moral prescriptions for the more wholesome lifestyle types out there.This would leave the rest of us free to go to the pharmacies that sell you legal prescriptions without all of the personal baggage these people bring with them to work!
From: rocco
[I'm the funny man!]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 13:57
From: blissfulgirl [~^-^~] Date: 3-Dec-2005 13:33 From: ciaochowbella [I didn't do it and I wasn't there when it happened] Date: 3-Dec-2005 07:32 If you don't have a uterus, you don't get a say on abortion. I call bullshit on this comment! ________________________________ Thank you, blissful, for being the voice of reason here! Your post was right on point. There have been countless cases where the man would have wanted the child but was denied the opportunity, often as a result of deception...meaning, they were never informed that they were the father. I've seen it happen both in cases of abortion AND in cases of adoption. Men cannot be expected to act responsibly if they are never even offered the chance of parenthood.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 14:07
and another thing, how do people against abortion find themselves on rotten . com? I mean pictures of dead people and guys getting tea bagged just doesn’t seem to jive with what pro lifers would be into Perhaps it's because your stereotype is wrong?
From: wulfgartheblack [Wulfgar the Black]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 14:13
From: petebest [petebest] Date: 3-Dec-2005 13:54 In response to a few comments to my previous posting: 2. These are not pill counters,. . .are highly trained, . . . duty to exercise their professional opinion in the use of these drugs. In fact pharmacists routinely supersede medical physicians' authority by refusing to fill prescriptions that are potentially dangerous to the patient's health. _________________________________________________________________________ The key words here are 'professional opinion' and 'patient's health'. These fundies were not acting on anything but their own prejudice.
From: petebest [petebest]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 14:25
In response to: ------------------------------------ The key words here are 'professional opinion' and 'patient's health'. These fundies were not acting on anything but their own prejudice. ------------------------------------ These pharmacists believe that these pills kill babies. They have a sworn duty, as pharmacists, to protect and promote human life. They consider in-utero zygotes as life. They are scientists capable of making that determination. The medical community is full of doctors and scientists who believe the same, as well as full of doctors and scientists who believe that that zygote is not life. They are professional, scientists to be exact, making a determination based on their expertise and knowledge. Let them do so.
From: brainspore [Brainspore]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 14:27
I agree with 8soft: There is nothing preventing the Christian community from starting their own line of pharmacies which do not carry contraceptives. A pharmacist who is morally opposed to distributing contraceptives has no more business working at Walgreen's than a someone who is morally opposed to distributing meat has working at a deli. You want to make a moral stand? Quit!
From: brainspore [Brainspore]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 14:31
These pharmacists believe that these pills kill babies. They have a sworn duty, as pharmacists, to protect and promote human life. They consider in-utero zygotes as life. And yet they continue to work at a place that kills babies? What sickos! If I found out my employer was part of a mass-murder plot I'd be out the door faster than you could say "hypocrite."
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 14:38
then please, enlighten me. Just because someone holds a common, singular opinion with "the church" doesn't mean the church gave them that opinion. It doesn't take a religion to make someone think killing babies is wrong, just like it doesn't take a total lack of religion to make someone think killing babies is ok. In this case, state law and corporate policy is against them. Refusing to sell them in violation of state law is passive resistance, which so many of us here advocate daily, however company policy says they can, and should, be fired.
From: petebest [petebest]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 14:48
in response to --------------------------------------- And yet they continue to work at a place that kills babies? What sickos! If I found out my employer was part of a mass-murder plot I'd be out the door faster than you could say "hypocrite." --------------------------------------- Or you could remain, lobby from the inside to change the policy, continue to do the good work that saves lives, while refusing to do what you feel takes lives. In philosphy its called the principle of double effect. In the alternative they could sit on the sideline and call people hypocrites based on shear opinion, not substance, education, fact, or practice. In fact you could teach them how to do just that as it seems like you already are setting the gold standard in that undertaking.
From: doem [doem]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 14:50
Just because someone holds a common, singular opinion with "the church" doesn't mean the church gave them that opinion. It doesn't take a religion to make someone think killing babies is wrong, just like it doesn't take a total lack of religion to make someone think killing babies is ok. --------- Oh, and who or what tells these people that the pill is used to kill babies? I don’t think any scientific institution involved in the study of this matter has claimed that a fertilized egg at this stage could be considered a baby.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 15:02
Oh, and who or what tells these people that the pill is used to kill babies? I don’t think any scientific institution involved in the study of this matter has claimed that a fertilized egg at this stage could be considered a baby. First, you didn't mention these pills in your statement, you said "and another thing, how do people against abortion find themselves on rotten . com? I mean pictures of dead people and guys getting tea bagged just doesn’t seem to jive with what pro lifers would be into " Only weak minded people minded people have their opinions dictated to them. The rest of us are able to think on our own and form our opinions based on whatever evidence we find.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 15:14
Only weak minded people have their opinions dictated to them. The rest of us are able to think for ourselves and base our opinions on whatever evidence we find. There, thats better.
From: will [william]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 15:36
How about the government playing god by forcing the pharmacists to actively comply with something they find morally repugnant? most laws are prohibitions rather than injunctive, exceptions are in extreme and obvious cases like having to render help to someone you have just run over. (and of course, to pay taxes, and respond to sumonses etc). Lawmakers need to think twice before passing any new law placing a positive burden of action on the citizens.
From: poontang [footlong]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 16:19
Oh Oh Oh Oh God I'm cumming...oh yeah, I gots to go to Walgreens after I cum
From: anubus [kevin]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 16:29
over population of the world leads to war
From: hawk3 [tritium]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 16:35
Since the pharmacists didn't know what the scrip was as a medicine and what its' use was, their license should be revoked.
From: ouroboros
[Devolution]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 16:46
Plain and simple, these pharmacists not only used their ideals to regulate someone else's CHOICE, but they did it in violation of established protocols... Fire them... On a personal note, I was 25 when I found out that I was going to be a dad. I more or less pressured my daughter's mom into thinking about an abortion; I was scared shitless, and was not ready to be a dad. Thankfully, her mother refused to consider it, and now my daughter is 3 and 1/2 years old, and I can't even imagine my life without her... But the slowly fading memory that I have is that I wanted my daughter dead before she was born. It's very surreal when you live through that choice...
From: tsentsen [tsentsen]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 17:24
Speaking from experience...I had once placed my self in a situation, the outcome of which I believe warranted the use of this medication. I will not go into detail, however I am one individual that will support most women who may be in need of assurance or assistance with whatever course she may decide to take. There are some who would use this measure to the extreme in that they would not take responsibility for precaution in the first place. On the other side of the coin there are those that have suffered at the hands of others be it incest, spousal or non-consensual. Do not be a judge of others unless you have walked a few hundred miles in their moccasins.
From: will [william]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 17:29
a passive deed (not entering into a trade if you don't want to) doesn't regulate anyone's choice. it is the stinking old government trying to regulate the choice of these individuals to not engage in transactions they find distasteful. if you knock on my door looking for a tinnie, and I choose not to sell you one nor even to direct you to a proper tinnie house, am I "regulating your choice"? of course not, I'm merely exercizing mine.
From: tucanscrew [three's more fun]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 18:04
Will, dear misguided lad, they are not knocking on your door. They are knocking on your employer's door. And just as you have a right to exercise your choice, your employer has a right to fire your ass, because it's his door. The way I read this, according to Illinois law, the only way Walgreens can refuse to fill this prescription is if they do not carry any birth control. As an employer they can dump all birth control pills, contraceptive creams etc., or they can dump six dumbass pharmacists. If I ran the company I would choose the latter. Emergency room doctors don't like having to remove bottles, pool balls, cell phones and other acoutrements from coots and poots, but it's their job. If you are a pharmacist filling prescriptions is your job. Do the job or find another line of work.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 18:41
Plain and simple, these pharmacists not only used their ideals to regulate someone else's CHOICE, but they did it in violation of established protocols...
Fire them... Wills right. They didn't regulate anyones choice, they can go other places for it. Fire them for breaking store policy (an actual contract for pharmacists I assume) fire them for breaking state law, but dont chase them out of their careers for following their consciences On a personal note, I was 25 when I found out that I was going to be a dad. I more or less pressured my daughter's mom into thinking about an abortion; I was scared shitless, and was not ready to be a dad. Thankfully, her mother refused to consider it, and now my daughter is 3 and 1/2 years old, and I can't even imagine my life without her... But the slowly fading memory that I have is that I wanted my daughter dead before she was born. It's very surreal when you live through that choice... I hear you there. I may not be able to feel the effects of an abortion as acutely as a woman does, but the loss of a child, unborn or not, fuckin hurts no matter what your gender.
From: backuptheholler [Junebug James]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 18:43
Why the hell would I knock on some person's door looking for a tinnie? I'd go to the local liquor mart. Now if I knocked on somebody's door asking for a contraceptive, no, they would have no obligation to either sell me one or direct me to a pharmacy. Ah, but if I went to a pharmacy with a legitimate prescription, you bet your ass I have every reasonable expectation to have that prescription filled and without a sermon. If the clerk at the liquor mart refused to sell me my booze because drinking is against his(her) religion, I'd expect that person to be fired too.
From: ouroboros
[Devolution]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 18:45
"if you knock on my door looking for a tinnie, and I choose not to sell you one nor even to direct you to a proper tinnie house, am I "regulating your choice"? of course not, I'm merely exercizing mine." Ah ha ha ha ha.... Please don't breed...
From: jediofporn [Wicked Meat Saber]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 18:52
Just wait until one of their daughters gets caught in bed all nekkid with their boyfriend's sperm dribbling out. Betcha they'll be speeding to the pharmacy then, eh? Not to mention if one of their daughters gets gang raped. I bet they'd deliver the f'n pills to the hospital before the rape kit was finished being collected. Moral standards are great in situations where there is definite black and white..unfortunately, most of this world is varying shades of gray.
From: commonsense
[please]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 19:08
If the owner of a store doesn't want to sell something, I can't see making them sell it. However, if I owned a store and my employee didn't want to sell something that I have for sale, I'd fire them and hire someone who would.
From: jediofporn [Wicked Meat Saber]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 19:12
From: petebest [petebest] Date: 3-Dec-2005 13:54 In response to a few comments to my previous posting: 1. Now I concede that there is a debate in the scientific community over whether life begins at fertilization or implantation. However, pharmacists are highly trained doctors of the pharmacological sciences, and are understandably concerned by the abortive tendencies of these pills. 2. Pharmacists are highly trained, hold advanced doctorate degrees, and are well trained in the biological sciences. As such, they, as much as the doctors who prescribe these drugs, have the duty to exercise their professional opinion in the use of these drugs. In fact pharmacists routinely supersede medical physicians' authority by refusing to fill prescriptions that are potentially dangerous to the patient's health. ------------------------------------------------------- Here's what I see wrong with this view (sorry Pete, but it hurts me to even read this post of yours). Scientific debate in the community means that it is not definitively known as of yet. Why should a pharmacist think that he knows better than the entire medical community? Pharmacists, though earning an education, are not "highly trained". Nor do they have "advanced degrees". They attended 4 years of college (six at the topside), just like that dipshit drama major down the street that works as a waiter while waiting for his "big break". Pharmacists have 4 years of education, doctors have 8. A pharmacist supposedly knows better than a doctor about what the patient needs? Fuck off with that, I say. They have a better tendency to know the likelihood of negative drug interactions, but not what is "best" for the patient. Even looking past the above, this is an issue of ethics...namely, the pharmacists believing theirs to be more important and/or justified than anyone else's. Not only do I hope they get fired, I hope they get blacklisted and ridiculed.
From: will [william]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 22:38
if their employers are happy to accommodate their moral stance, it is nobody else's business. it is not just pharmacies who make some allowance for their workers' sensibilities. some employers for instance will have a policy that their staff can take a day off on their own particular religious holidays. they don't just fire such staff for "not doing their damned jobs". we'd all love to work for such an enlightened employer if we have to work for someone. and no, opening a business does not constitute a contract with the public to provide them with any particular commodities. p.s. a tinny is a measure of marijuana rolled up in aluminium foil. it is sold at tinny houses, and if you have one of these in your neighbourhood, you will likely be pestered at odd hours by odd folk wanting to buy a tinny because such people often get confused about things like addresses. you will also likely be well aware of the location of the tinny house, because of the steady stream of visitors there, the curtains drawn during the day etc. but you may not be of a mind to help the people who disturb your rest with their perfectly legitimate pharmacological requirements. it's your choice.
From: will [william]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 22:40
whether from religious or moral concerns or simply because you are sick of them, or you just don't consider it something you want to be involved in.
From: petebest [petebest]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 23:44
Dear jediofporn, You very confidently pronounced an understanding of the duration of schooling necessary to become a pharmacist. It sounded correct even. You began with a condescending remark explaining that it "hurts" you to read my posts and proceeded to seemingly set the record straight. Unfortunately, and this may come as a shock to people like you who rant, but fail to back their conjecture up with fact, I know how long pharmacists attend school, and what type of training they receive. I worked for Pfizer for a number of years and my wife is a pharmacist. Minimum, and this is the bare minimum, a pharmacist attends 6 years of school. Typically, as is the case in most pharmacy programs, a pharmacist is in school for at least 7 years and often for as many as 8 or 9 years. Additionally, following the completion of this program, a pharmacist receives a Doctorate of the Pharmalogical Sciences, or a Pharm D. These men and women are not pill jockeys and are certainly better informed than you or I, and are a far cry more adept at understanding these issues than the art student you likened them to. In fact doctors routinely consult with pharmacists on the proper applications of prescription drugs to certain patients because that is there recognized area of expertise. I apologize for limiting these arguments to the raw facts, but it is necessary to do so. If you truly believe that the state has the right to impose these decisions on professionals, I applaud you for standing up for your beliefs. However I implore you to back up your arguments with facts that you know are true, and not confidently delivered, yet patently false diatribes. When you do that quite frankly you just come across as naive and shallow.
From: mikeisgreen
[Mike]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 00:06
"At least six other pharmacists have sued over the rule, claiming it forces them to violate their religious beliefs." So, right wing religious nutjobs are suing because they believe their religious beliefs exempt them from the law. Well then, my religion allows human sacrifice of nutjobs to the gods of SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STOP INTERFERING IN OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS. If these Illinois lawsuits are successful in knocking down laws that curtail or prohibit decisions based on one's religious beliefs, and exempting religiously motivated actions from Illinois state law, I will move there. Then I will then begin a campaign of human sacrifice. Starting with nutjob pharmacists. I will also run over very, very fat people to rustproof my car, as it is the only holy way to do it. Whenever religious zealots try to interfere with federal or provincial law up here, they usually are laughed into hiding. Go to church asshole, and keep your beliefs or delusions out of everyone else's face. You don't see Jehovah's Witnesses working in blood banks, do you? Law is for everyone, keep your fucking religion out of it.
From: farklol [Bobby Chen]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 00:10
A pharmacist denying a customer prescriptions on their own personal moral grounds is like a Hindi working at a McDonald's and denying their customers to a Big Mac. If you find certain parts of your job morally objectionable, then quit, don't wait for them to fire you, just quit. Open your own pharmacy and make your own policies. The company has the right to fire you for not doing your job, i.e denying a customer service. End of discussion.
From: bongcraft [meh]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 00:27
Oh christians, scourge of this planet of ours, when will you cease such trivial deuchbaggery?
From: dirtybeats [Dirty Beats]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 00:37
petebest While what you say holds some semblance of truth it is no totally accurate. Most pharmacist working at drug stores hold bachelors of Science in pharmacy not advance degrees as you state. Simply go to Walgreen's employment opportunities and see what they require for employment. Pharmacists working at the local Walgreen's are not bioethicists who are paid to develop guidelines for the administration of medications. They are more or less supervisors of the pill counters I have seen referenced here. They also do such things as preparing I.V. solutions and compound medications. They are not doing research for a company like Pfizer or the likes. I write this from the prospective of being a nurse that works in the medical field and deals with pharmacies and pharmacists on a daily basis. Omnicare is the pharmacy the municipality I am employed by uses. So as you dismissed the argument put forth by another poster as not being correct you went on to disseminate misinformation. In the hood that is called lying  The cats that pulled this should simply find new employment if they can not fill a lawfully written prescription. These highly paid pill jockeys need to do what they are thought to do. That is fill prescriptions and make consumers aware of the side affects, adverse reactions and contraindications that may be associated with the medications that they are dispensing. Throwing in a little condemnation was never taught at the university. So please cease disseminating false information. The pharmacists at your locale drug store only hold a BA in Pharmaceutical Science. Though I must admit you do come across as articulate and well written.
From: mindwarp [pithy quote]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 02:25
Well, since "dumbass of the morning" has already been awarded, I'll award "best post of the day". And it goes tooooo..... petebest. oh farkol, now there's an original thought. Most original post of the day goes to you. NOT Human sacrifice - that's a crime of commission, which infringes the rights of another person. Choosing not to deal with certain products though, is at worst a crime of commission, which does not infringe anyone's rights. It's much the same as defying the draft.
From: aeon
[aeon]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 04:11
From: bongcraft [meh]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 00:27
Oh christians, scourge of this planet of ours, when will you cease such trivial deuchbaggery? never. they will never stop. their insatiable lust for the control of other people's private lives knows no bounds, no borders, no laws. they will never give up, regardless of what their hysterical fighting does to their own lives... because they aren't living for themselves. they're living for their interpretation of god. every action they take is designed to satisfy their god, and give them a greater chance at an upscale suburb in the hereafter. they're completely fucking obsessed with it, so much so that pragmatic living in the present is a concept for which they have no concern or worry or anything at all. there's nothing so terrifying as a modern person with this level of devotion to these kinds of concerns... you never know just how far they're gonna go. today it's refusing to fill prescriptions. tomorrow, it's refusing [insert anything here that isn't currently being refused]. along with all the other religious fundamentalists, the common north-american christianist is the chiefmost wrench in the gears. these people will continue doing whatever it takes to satisfy "god", and they're not gonna care who suffers because of it.
From: deathbox [Pinky]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 04:24
Tricky, tricky, tricky.... This isn't the first time someone have to choose between job & religion. But i think its the girls decision to take the pills or not. The pharmacist have to give what they want, becouse he can't be sure that the girls will use it. He can try to talk some sense in her if he like, but he SHOULD NOT REFUSE to give her what she wants. After that he can say: i've tryd it, man! no shame on me. I wash my hands. This christian mentality with the abortion is like rape. Every Women Had To Have a Chance To CHoose what to do with their OWN Body. Respect the free will.... oh you are humble american christian aren't you... ...shit...ahh don't mind me..im...just..blabing around you know...stupid stuff....bye
From: backuptheholler [Junebug James]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 06:07
From: will [william]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 17:29
if you knock on my door looking for a tinnie then From: will [william]
Date: 3-Dec-2005 22:38
p.s. a tinny is a measure of marijuana rolled up in aluminium foil. Will: Even in slang spelling counts. A tinnie is beer in an aluminum can (hence my reference to the liquor mart); a tinny is foiled pot. This has been a public service message from the Spelling Police. Please move along. Nothing more to see here.
From: petebest [petebest]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 08:26
Dear dirtybeats and the rest of you all, First off, and I hope this puts an end to this, dirtybeats, you've revisited the idea that pharmacist holds only a B.A. and that you should "know" this because you have worked as a nurse. Well allow me to dispel any misconceptions with fact. Read the following link: (http://tinyurl.com/dpkxr) This is how pharmacists are trained. They hold a Pharm D. and are the recognized experts in the field of medication. Now, I understand that some pharmacy schools wrap the Pharm D. degree into a bachelors program, more or less piggy backing it off of a bachelors degree. However, even in that situation, the pharmacist still endures six years of near constant scientific training. What bachelors degree requires that? Yes pharmacies are also staffed by under trained pharmtechs, but their role is akin to a nurse’s role to a doctor, as lesser trained support stuff, and should not enter into this argument as they are not part of the discussion. And worse off all this is all beyond the point, because I am only raising the idea that these highly trained professionals (which at this point I hope I have finally established) should be the ones making this decision. Perhaps I was not explicit enough and left it all in the subtext but what these pharmacists are doing is effectively consciensciously objecting to medication they find immoral or dangerous in their professional opinion. Earlier I used an example of a doctor being forced to perform an abortion against his wishes. Without entering into a pro life argument or even broaching the topic of religion I think we all can understand what is wrong with that. Let me make it clearer, in terms that everyone on Rotten.com should understand. This decision by these pharmacists is no different than a pacifist refusing to go to war because he believes it is wrong. I believe a near plurality of readers of this site would support that decision and would condemn any state law that forced him to do so, even if it only placed his livelihood at jeopardy for making that choice. In the end, and this is all that I am saying, these are informed professionals who should be free to choose. We call them professionals because of their advanced training. If, based on those grounds, regardless of what other influences enter into their decision, they choose not to fill a prescription, their employer and certainly the state of Illinois should support that decision, so long as the decision is rational. In the case at hand these pharmacists are not Zealots. They work at pharmacies that cell contraceptives, and certainly other politically divisive medications. They have a problem with this particular medication, and understandably so. Let them make that choice and exercise their rational professional opinion without the state or their employer, who could not operate a pharmacy without these pharmacists professional licenses, interfering.
From: brainspore [Brainspore]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 08:55
"They work at pharmacies that cell contraceptives, and certainly other politically divisive medications. They have a problem with this particular medication, and understandably so." Again I say, any person who truly believes that their employer is an ongoing accessory to mass murder should leave that business immediately. Staying because of the "good" that company does would be like sticking with the Nazi party because of the fuel efficient automobiles. "Let them make that choice and exercise their rational professional opinion without the state or their employer, who could not operate a pharmacy without these pharmacists professional licenses, interfering." Obviously they can operate without these pharmacists or they wouldn't be putting them on unpaid leave, would they? You still have not provided a satisfactory answer to why these idealistic pharmacists don't make a powerful moral statement by quitting and working for a pharmacy that doesn't sell oral contraceptives. Do you believe for a moment that these people would continue working at Walgreen's if the store started distributing cyanide for the purpose of killing off one's parents? If this drug is "murder," then their reaction should be no different.
From: superpants
Date: 4-Dec-2005 09:10
Quote: "If you don't have a uterus, you don't get a say on abortion." why even post a message as stupid as this? the truth is that men do have a say in abortion. right or wrong, like it or not, this is the way things are. last i checked, there were many men in office who do in fact "get a say on abortion." furthermore, as long as we're on the subject... yes, i think it is a woman's right to decide whether to keep a child. but, it should NOT be a woman's right to automatically make a man a father by keeping the child. if a woman tricks a guy into getting pregnant, the man shouldn't have to be financially responsible for a selfish decision the woman made with her body.
From: cheshirecat [James Bong]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 09:20
There exist ways to implant embryos into (hormone-treated) male animals that allow growth and development. Why not kidnap one of these pharmacists, implant a zygote into their body (ex. induce ectopic pregnancy, let the zygote develop into a fetus, and then release them and see what they do? Something tells me that baby would be aborted and smashed to pieces as both an "abomination" and a "spawn of Satan." -- CC
From: farklol [Bobby Chen]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 09:38
It doesn't matter now many years it takes to get a pharmacy degree or the depth of knowledge in the field of medicine. The decision to deny a customer to emergency contraceptives is a PERSONAL one, based on their own personal belief that flushing an unfertilized egg amounts to killing a baby, that the very PREVENTION of conception is a moral sin. This belief is not held by the customer they are denying service to. Because they choose to excercise their rights, they infringe upon the rights of the customers. If pharmacists have the right to sue their employers, then the customers have the right to sue their pharmacists.
From: robwrigley
Date: 4-Dec-2005 09:58
Pete: That was well-informed, well-written, and complete nonsense. I'm led to believe you are (a) being willfully stupid, (b) are bending over backward to support a hidden agenda, and/or (c) are utterly unemployable. These pharmacists are making decisions that are not theirs to make. And they are failing to fulfill their obligations to their employer. That is the whole of the story. Education, moral convictions, divine right doesn't enter into it. They are not fulfilling their contracts. Let's use an analogy: If you show up to work on one of my gigs, and tell me you can't put a mic on the conga due to your own convictions, and deeply-held belief that conga must only resonate in the natural acoustic environment (a well-articulated bit of b.s.), you aren't getting called back for another gig. If I am feeling particularly ornery, I'll try to make sure you get docked, or not payed at all. Even if you have a degree in musicology, another in acoustics, have spent five years in Cuba, five in Africa, and spent twenty years as Tito Puente's percussion tech, you still are never going to work on one of my gigs again. It is, very simple, not your decision to make. If you don't feel you can comply with your job requirements, you have a moral obligation to resign from the job. Morality works in that direction as well. In fact, your personal obligations to your employer are more important than any grand, metaphysical ones. There is a chance you are wrong about the designs of God and the Univere. You have a lot of control over what happens after you look a man in the eye, shake his hand, and say, "Yes, I can do that." Rob
From: petebest [petebest]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 10:58
Rob, It's hard that we have to continue to revisit this point, but you are slow, so here we go again. Very simply: 1. Pharmacist = Well educated and licensed professional 2. Pharmacy = A business staffed with pharmacists 3. The State = An entity that imposes rules and regulations 4. One of these regulations = All pharmacies must have a state licensed pharmacist on staff to exercise their professional judgment in assuring the safe dissemination of complicated and often misunderstood drugs. 5. Another one of these regulations = All pharmacists who sell any kind of birth control must sell aborticides as well. 6. My Point = We would never ask any gynecologist who "could" perform an abortion to be required to perform an abortion by state law. We would never support a hospital for firing a gynecologist for refusing to perform a non-emergency abortive procedure. Why then is it o.k. to support Illinois' and Walgreens' decision towards these equally well trained professionals for refusing to take part in performing, what they in their professional opinion, feel amounts to a non-emergency chemical abortion. Simple. Clear. No God involved. No religion. Certainly the pharmacists may factor that into their decision, but no more than the gynecologist in my previous example would. The State here is attempting to force these pharmacist’s hands into playing God, something they justifiably should oppose. A common burden of a professional is that they are asked to deal with issues that directly affect human life, and this is an extreme example of professionals doing exactly what we pay them so much to do, using their professional judgment to better our society. Walgreens cannot operate a pharmacy without these well educated men and women, and should not ask them to compromise their professional licenses. Perhaps they should quit and go work someplace else, however as any student of philosophy can understand they could do what they are currently doing, which is employing the principle of double effect to right a perceived wrong. Regardless of the choice, just as it would be absurd for the hospital in the above example to fire that gynecologist, it is absurd for Walgreens to take any action against these pharmacists. Just because they have the proper training and license to perform a task, does not give their employer a right to force them to.
From: byemen [bill yemen]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 11:35
Message to PETEBEST: Men of science investigate their workplace to find out if they might be required to dispense morally reprehensible products before they accept employment. If they are indeed professional, they would not make biased judgements based on their cultural perception of morality, because that perception cannot be scientifically proven. Face it, PETEBEST, you can't prove scientifaclly, that is, that any God exists. Your proof is based on folklore passed down for generations. Are you going to accept the Islamic definition of morality when they are in the majority??
From: piscivore [Michael C. Scott]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 11:36
Since Walgreens has awarded it's employees the right to refuse to sell "morning after" pills to rape victims, the solution seems obvious to me: boycott Walgreens. That's right. Don't buy anything at all there. Get your prescriptions filled at a supermarket or a Wal Mart. If my sister or girlfriend was raped and some JEEEZUS assfuck behind the counter refused to sell her morning-after pills so she wouldn't have to have some nigger's baby, I'd probably get pissed off enough that I'd kill the pharmacist. Since JEEEZUS doesn't want me to beat any pharmacists to death with a claw hammer, it seems reasonable that they swallow their moral reservations and sell the anti-nigger pills. It also seems reasonable that Walgreens change it's corporate policy and FIRE anyone refusing to sell anti-nigger pills.
From: wino [wino]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 11:37
I wonder, if it was christian fundamentalists trying to legislate that workers of a particular industry must perform certain tasks which those workers found repugnant to their morals (I dunno, conducting a laying-on-of-hands for each customer perhaps, just for the sake of argument), would everybody here suddenly decide they love freedom after all and applaud these staff for their brave resistance?
From: robwrigley
Date: 4-Dec-2005 11:38
"Just because they have the proper training and license to perform a task, does not give their employer a right to force them to." Correct...but it gives their employer the right to fire their morally-opposing asses, and get someone who will do the job they are paid to do. These pharmacists can go work at Bartleby Rx...(or is that too obscure a joke?) As for the gynecologist...Yes I would support that hospital, if part of the gynecologist's job requirements is to preform abortions. They will be dismissed, and replaced with someone who will. And I'll go find a stage tech who doesn't object to micing conga. In fact...I don't see how this conversation involves anything other than: Taking money to do a job, and then not doing it. That is not being moral. That's being a bum. Oh, and one more thing...never use the term 'philosophy student' in a conversation about holding a job. They are two mutually exclusive concepts, as any philosophy professor well knows. Rob
From: yermortician [Morgana]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 11:54
For the parmacists: If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. For the people who can't keep their pussy or dick's in their pants...the choice is your own, you know how you feel about it and if you want to go to hell later for it, do whatever you want.
From: doczzz
[dwarf fusion]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 12:03
Pharmacists are licensed to make judgments about drug safety and prevent abuse. The state does not license them to make moral judgments about customers or interpret biblical dispensing policy. I would *love* to be a "Christian Science" pharmacist. The lazy fucker wouldn't even have to dispense Tylenol. Since ALL medical treatment is against his/her religious beliefs, they would be protected from termination because of 'religious discrimination'. It would be a great job, sitting on your ass and proselytizing to customers about God's Will. [rotten.com] End of story. If they want to be martyrs, give them their martyrdom. Petebest, where would you draw the line? Stop being an asswipe and making excuses for these fucktards. Fire them. They are betraying their whole profession, their employers reputation and profits, and their patients' best interests for selfish political reasons.
From: petebest [petebest]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 12:15
Rob, you do a great job of ignoring the point. Emergency contraceptives are a new product. It was not necessarily a part of the job when these pharmacists took the job. It may seem odd to you but people have a tendency to hold on to a job for longer than 5 years. I apologize for not spelling that out to you in my last example. I tried to go slow enough, I apologize that I failed you. It appears you are still too hung up on your mystery sound tech to hang with the true issue here. These have only been available to the U.S. market for the last 5 years or so. You cannot force a doctor to suddenly begin performing non-emergency abortions. You cannot force a pharmacist to sell non emergency abortacides, especially, as is likely here, that was not a consideration when they took the job. What if a state law mandated that you had to take it up the ass from your boss bi-monthly, and that you could be fired for not complying. Now, perhaps you wouldn't have a problem with it, especially you, but I hope you could understand how changing the requirements of your job to force you to perform something you find morally or ethically repugnant is just wrong.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 12:24
why even post a message as stupid as this? the truth is that men do have a say in abortion. right or wrong, like it or not, this is the way things are.
last i checked, there were many men in office who do in fact "get a say on abortion." Actually, if a man gets any say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion, it's because the woman gave it to him. No matter how much voice she gives him, it's her choice in the end. You can't decide against her. Hence, you really have no say in it. You're thinking of the world of Should, but we live in the land of Is These pharmacists are making decisions that are not theirs to make They are deciding whether or not they will sell product A to person B. That's nobodys decision but theirs. They aren't deciding whether somebody should get the product, it can be gotten elsewhere. they are failing to fulfill their obligations to their employer This however, is true and their employment should be terminated.(or so I assume, I've not read their contracts. Walgreens cannot operate a pharmacy without these well educated men and women, and should not ask them to compromise their professional licenses But they can operate better with other pharmacists who don't have a problem selling their products. Just because they have the proper training and license to perform a task, does not give their employer a right to force them to. Unless it's against their contract, yes, they do have that right. Oh, and one more thing...never use the term 'philosophy student' in a conversation about holding a job. They are two mutually exclusive concepts, as any philosophy professor well knows. ROLF! The McDonalds analogy is wrong. The overwhelming majority of their business is selling meat-like products. What percentage of a pharmcy's business is selling this particular medication that probably wasn't even on the market when they started their careers.
From: brainspore [Brainspore]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 12:55
"The McDonalds analogy is wrong. The overwhelming majority of their business is selling meat-like products. What percentage of a pharmcy's business is selling this particular medication that probably wasn't even on the market when they started their careers." If I was of the "meat is murder" mindset and thoroughly opposed to selling it, it wouldn't matter if my employer began doing it before or after I joined the company. I would quit as soon as it became part of the company's business practice. For a more dramatic (if overused) analogy, "Let's kill all the Jews" was not part of the Nazi mission statement when the party first formed. This does not excuse the Nazis who decided to stick around after it became clear that this was a central party goal. Anyone who believes in their heart that their employer regularly engages in mass murder has a moral obligation to sever ties with that company immediately.
From: ragnarlodbrok [Shaggypants]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 13:03
petebest, All your posturing about doctorates and skill levels does not hide the the fact that these religious fundamentalists were not acting only in a professional capacity. Their actions were based only on religion - on what some priest told them. Not law, not concern for the patient. God's a big boy. He doesn't need your help running the universe.
From: kherpuppet [Kher]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 13:08
One question: why is it that christian supremacists/cultists always consider themselves above the laws of this country? The First Amendment works both ways. The government may not enact any law that recognizes a particular religion, unless of course you are a republican traitor, but let's just limit the scope of this point to true patriots. The flip side of this is that a cult member may not inflict his or her twisted beliefs upon the public, especially in the field of medicine. You don't want to follow the law of your state? Move to another state. And to whomever here said that "there are no emergency prescriptions..." You obviously have never heard of a hospital or emergency care facility. The only meds they dispense are "emergency" scrips. Wake up and look into a subject before you babble incoherently about it... - k
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 13:21
Anyone who believes in their heart that their employer regularly engages in mass murder has a moral obligation to sever ties with that company immediately Or change try to change the state law which forced this company policy. However, the company is not against them, really. They haven't been fired, they're on leave until the decide to sell, or they take the jobs offered them in Mo, where the law allows them to pick and choose what they sell. Walgreen policy says pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions to which they are morally opposed _ except where state law prohibits _ but they must take steps to have the prescription filled by another pharmacist or store, Bruce said.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 13:28
One question: why is it that christian supremacists/cultists always consider themselves above the laws of this country? For the same reason everyone else does? Nobody here is talking about a law that recognizes any particular religion, the pharmacists believe the state law infringes on their right to freely practice their religion. In case you don't read what you write... Wake up and look into a subject before you babble incoherently about it
From: brainspore [Brainspore]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 14:00
Brainspore wrote: Anyone who believes in their heart that their employer regularly engages in mass murder has a moral obligation to sever ties with that company immediately Aulduron wrote: Or change try to change the state law which forced this company policy. However, the company is not against them, really. They haven't been fired, they're on leave until the decide to sell, or they take the jobs offered them in Mo, where the law allows them to pick and choose what they sell. Give me a break. Are you saying that if your employer regularly murdered people all you'd do is quietly refrain from joining in, maybe write a letter to your congressperson? What kind of example is that? My objection to murder is not based on whether or not it is legal. I can't see how any person could rationalize staying with an employer that went against their deepest moral convictions. "Hey, it's OK, Mr. Manson says I don't have to kill the chicks myself as long as I keep the place clean."
From: robwrigley
Date: 4-Dec-2005 14:39
Well, others have responded as I would: If the job description changes, and you no longer like it, go get another job as soon as your contract allows. You may have to in order to save your soul, our sphincter, or peace-of-mind, as the case may be. aulduron: 'Meat-like' substance? Is that what that gray, greasy thing is, jammed inside all that two corn-syrup, starch, and salt? I was almost certain it was some sort of moss or petroleum product. Rob
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 14:39
Give me a break. Are you saying that if your employer regularly murdered people all you'd do is quietly refrain from joining in, maybe write a letter to your congressperson? What kind of example is that? My objection to murder is not based on whether or not it is legal. I can't see how any person could rationalize staying with an employer that went against their deepest moral convictions. That's not what they're doing. If the were just quietly refraining from joining in, they wouldn't be in the paper. They're not being quiet at all, they're suing the company, even though they broke their contracts(I assume)and the company offered them jobs in Mo where they don't have to sell said product, in hopes that the law will be overturned for violating their 1st amendment rights. They can't challenge the law if they move or quit. Deborah Davis could have showed her ID or found a new way to work. She didn't, she decided to passively resist, and get arrested in order to challenge the law(again, I'm assuming its law) or policy. Rosa Parks could have got her ass off the seat like the law required, but she knew the law was wrong and she stayed seated in order to challenge it. I'm not saying these pharmacists have the same moral righteousness as the aforementioned ladies, but they're doing the same thing most activists do to change the law.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 14:42
aulduron: 'Meat-like' substance? Is that what that gray, greasy thing is, jammed inside all that two corn-syrup, starch, and salt? I was almost certain it was some sort of moss or petroleum product. "Well, I know meat, and that ain't it"
From: doczzz
[dwarf fusion]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 14:44
From: aulduron [Aulduron]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 14:39
...Deborah Davis could have showed her ID or found a new way to work. She didn't, she decided to passively resist, and get arrested in order to challenge the law(again, I'm assuming its law) or policy.
Rosa Parks could have got her ass off the seat like the law required, but she knew the law was wrong and she stayed seated in order to challenge it.
I'm not saying these pharmacists have the same moral righteousness as the aforementioned ladies, but they're doing the same thing most activists do to change the law. ************************************ I agree. Those acts of civil disobedience resulted in arrests. The pharmacists should be arrested too.
From: 8soft [Chest Ironslab]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 15:15
We had all better hope the morals and beliefs of our public servants never interfere with their decision making process. For example, the Muslim fireman not wanting to help put out the fire at a Christian church or vise versa. The moral issue is one that seems to never conclude,especially in the USA where the views are as diversified as the populous.
From: farklol [Bobby Chen]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 15:36
"For the same reason everyone else does? Nobody here is talking about a law that recognizes any particular religion, the pharmacists believe the state law infringes on their right to freely practice their religion." And when a pharmacist denies legal drug to a customer, they infringe on the rights of those customers. Because the customer's religious beliefs do not always coincide with their pharmacist. The customer made the decision to purchase emergency contraceptions, within the boundaries of law and their own moral philosophy, only to have the pharmacist make the decision for them. "They can just get it someplace else" is not a valid answer when the pharmacist has the choice to quit and work at a place where they don't stock such contraceptives. That way they are free to excercise their moral opinion without having to supplant their customer's.
From: robwrigley
Date: 4-Dec-2005 15:43
"For example, the Muslim fireman not wanting to help put out the fire at a Christian church or vise versa." Oh hey! I think you just won the "reducto ad absurdum award" for this thread! "Sorry chief. My mullah misrepresents the word of the Prophet to mean that we good servents of Allah got to let those infidels burn. See you after the blaze. By the by...will there be overtime on this one?" While checking the spelling of that phrase, I came across the following: Reductio ad Hitlerum [wikipedia.org] I'm still giggling hysterically at that! We already have one in this thread. Rob
From: jediofporn [Wicked Meat Saber]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 15:54
Petebest, You are indeed one condescending motherfucker. I could link all to high hell different places that you can get a pharmacology degree in 4 years. I figured that anyone able to find this site can also find out where to locate that info. Regardless, it's true, that is not the core of this argument. Those pharmacists do have a right to decide whether or not they feel they can deny a customer the right to a certain product (sounds stupid, eh?). In turn, the pharmacy can exercise their right to protect their profit margin and fire the self-righteous fuck who is costing the company money by not selling the Food and Drug Administration-passed pharmaceutical that was prescribed by a medical doctor to treat a patient who could possibly have been the victim of rape, molestation, or alien rape abduction. Here's a unique idea, if that one pill dispenser has a problem with it, have him step the fuck aside and let the assistant who makes less than half as much a year as the pharmacist does give the woman her pills. My original comment to you was an attempt to abate any harsh cynical or sarcastic comments that might shine through my post. If I take the gloves off, I might be inclined to say that you should be happy that this product didn't exist when you were still a sperm making your trip of a lifetime...because if I had been the pharmacist, I would have demanded your mother take the pill on the spot. Get over yourself, your views on a certain subject should not be allowed to influence the long term quality of someone else's life...neither should a pharmacist's. It's not like the prescription says "Give this women "X" amount of "kill the baby" pills...she's a f'n whore who got knocked up." The pharmacist has no idea of the reason the woman needs the pills, so they should just shut the hell up, take the money, and dispense the pills.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 15:58
"We had all better hope the morals and beliefs of our public servants never interfere with their decision making process. For example, the Muslim fireman not wanting to help put out the fire at a Christian church or vise versa. The moral issue is one that seems to never conclude,especially in the USA where the views are as diversified as the populous." I never read the Koran but I bet it doesn't say anything against putting out fires. Thats petty bickering. It's blind hatred of others because of differing beliefs. It has nothing to do with morals. And when a pharmacist denies legal drug to a customer, they infringe on the rights of those customers. Which rights? The customer made the decision to purchase emergency contraceptions, within the boundaries of law and their own moral philosophy, only to have the pharmacist make the decision for them. The pharmacist is not making anyone elses decision. He doesn't even have that ability. The customer decided to heed a doctors advice and take the drug. The pharmacist refusing to fill the script does not negate the customers decision. The customer can still decide to get her prescription filled. I agree that if the store stocks it, he should sell it, but he's not making anyone elses decision. If a Pharmacists association were trying to talk all pharmacists into not stocking said medication, you might have a point.
From: elektrodot [kaleigh b]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 16:11
boy all i see here is 2 men (petebest and rob) fighting over technical bullshit that has absolutely NO concern for the woman that would obviously be involved in this. but then again, thats pretty much how the government/rest of the world works too.
From: jediofporn [Wicked Meat Saber]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 16:13
And if, say, all pharmacists in a certain geographical region (be it city, county, metropolitan area) all decide, together, not to sell the drug in question, what then? Certainly a woman who has recently been raped and has no car is going to have problems getting out of the city to get somewhere else to buy the drug, especially since the whole situation is very time sensitive. That means that the pharmacists have made her decision by proxy. The way I see it is like this: Sure, the pharmacist can say, "I can't sell it for personal reasons." They should then run their ass around and find someone who will, preferably at the same pharmacy so as to not inconvenience the customer who made a trip to that store to purchase said product. If the product is in the store, then the store employee should sell it to the customer who desires it, end of story. Any adherence to one's own personal beliefs that get in the way of other rights (yes, it is denying someone the right..the product is in stock and has a price tag on it, plain and simple...they're denying someone the right to buy what they need for nothing other than personal opinion) could and should be fired.
From: farklol [Bobby Chen]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 16:32
"The pharmacist refusing to fill the script does not negate the customers decision. The customer can still decide to get her prescription filled." That is a logical fallacy. When the pharmacist refuses to fill out the prescription of the customer they are overrulling the customer's decision. The only means that the customer can obtain emergency contraceptives is through the pharmacist, they cannot simply jump over the counter and fill the prescriptions themselves. When the customer made the decision to obtain contraceptives, but is denied based on moral objections of the pharmacist, their decision is supplanted. Let's not argue technicalities here, you understand perfectly well what I mean. "I agree that if the store stocks it, he should sell it" And there it is, it's that simple: if it is in stock, then the pharmacist has an obligation to the customer when they request it. If he finds himself morally opposed to selling a certain product he should quit and work at a store that doesn't stock it.
From: robwrigley
Date: 4-Dec-2005 16:35
"boy all i see here is 2 men (petebest and rob) fighting over technical bullshit that has absolutely NO concern for the woman that would obviously be involved in this. but then again, thats pretty much how the government/rest of the world works too." And what I see is a woman making broad (no pun intended) generalizations, based on her personal prejudices and concerns. I can also see the face of Jesus in my enchilada...but I digress. Rob
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 16:53
And if, say, all pharmacists in a certain geographical region (be it city, county, metropolitan area) all decide, together, not to sell the drug in question, what then? If there's a concerted effort to keep it out of the hands of everybody in a large area, I think thats a problem. Certainly a woman who has recently been raped and has no car is going to have problems getting out of the city to get somewhere else to buy the drug, especially since the whole situation is very time sensitive. That means that the pharmacists have made her decision by proxy. I honestly don;t know much about the drug in question, I don't know what other options, if any, there are, I don't know what it does, so I can't go into that. The way I see it is like this: Sure, the pharmacist can say, "I can't sell it for personal reasons." They should then run their ass around and find someone who will, preferably at the same pharmacy so as to not inconvenience the customer who made a trip to that store to purchase said product. Actually, they are required to do that. If the product is in the store, then the store employee should sell it to the customer who desires it, end of story. I agree, but theres a big difference between should and must. Any adherence to one's own personal beliefs that get in the way of other rights (yes, it is denying someone the right..the product is in stock and has a price tag on it, plain and simple...they're denying someone the right to buy what they need for nothing other than personal opinion) could and should be fired. I don't go into many drug stores, but I know that prescription drugs are kept in a back room with no price tags. I don't remember ever seeing a list of drugs they keep back there. Regardless, theres no right to buy stuff, as long as civil rights aren't violated. Each Walgreens has 3-5 pharmacists. It doesn't say if anyone was actually denied the drug that day. They suspended 4 pharmacists in the area but it doesn't say if they were in the same store. "I agree that if the store stocks it, he should sell it"
And there it is, it's that simple: if it is in stock, then the pharmacist has an obligation to the customer when they request it. If he finds himself morally opposed to selling a certain product he should quit and work at a store that doesn't stock it. Just because you or I think he should, doesn't mean he is obligated. Illinois law makes him obligated, company policy makes him obligated, unless he takes that job in a different state, but our opinions dont obligate him.
From: goldamyass [Drucilla]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 16:55
These "professionals" make me sneer. Methinks they need a nice hospitality job like mine, where some fool expects a sportfuck after the crappers are cleaned.
From: jediofporn [Wicked Meat Saber]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 17:07
Aulduron - I don't go into many drug stores, but I know that prescription drugs are kept in a back room with no price tags. I don't remember ever seeing a list of drugs they keep back there. Regardless, theres no right to buy stuff, as long as civil rights aren't violated. Granted, there probably isn't a price tag on the stuff itself, but a price is associated with the product because it is intended (and is in fact stocked and kept in the store) to be sold to customers that require or desire the product and have proper authorization to do so. The person wants it, the doc says they need it, then the pharmacist plays the role of pill-nazi...."no pills for you!" Sure, they're required to find someone who can supply the drug, but in this case it's obvious that something must have broke down that allowed the situation to become much more problematic. I think it would make much more sense (and be more logical) that if the pharmacist cannot find a replacement vendor within 1 hour, they swallow their pride and self-righteous views and sell the damn pills.
From: hawk3 [tritium]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 18:16
I'm still waiting on doczz to phone in my fentanyl script. I know doc, schedule I drugs can't be phoned in. Dumbass @lol.
From: conspiracy
[Theory]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 18:49
What if I run into a pharmacist feels that if God wants to heal me .... He will ..... and not give me any prescription at all ? I don't depend on any certain drug ... but I know some who do. At what point do they say ENOUGH ? If you can't do your job ... go away. You are hired to do a job , not practice your beliefs. If one conflicts with the other ... quit the one you don't have control of. ( Think which one that is ) SIMPLE! And a PS. Walgreens is going down the drain .. sell your stock. I have family that works there , and they ( Walgreens) are trying so hard to keep up with Walmart , that they have a new policy of no proof of purchase to return items. But .... they do not have the security that Walmart does. So now ... everyday.... people pick up stuff in the store ... walk over to the registers .... and ask for a refund ... and it works... Tell you something how Walgreens works... Dumb fucks... MTC
From: mysticmommy
Date: 4-Dec-2005 19:07
I, for one, don't give a flying F*ck how long a pharmacist has to go to school to learn to be a self righteous asshole! Who's with me? First of all, this pill has nothing to do with abortion. Regular old oral contraceptives do the same thing as the emergency contraceptives. Regular birth control pills prevent ovulation. However, if ovulation does occur, it prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg by making the uterus a "hostile" environment. Emergency contraceptives do the very same thing. Do the pharmacist also refuse to sell regular birth control pills?
From: petebest [petebest]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 19:45
Dear jediofporn: in response to: ------------------------------------ You are indeed one condescending motherfucker. I could link all to high hell different places that you can get a pharmacology degree in 4 years. ------------------------------------ Strange you chose not to link to those sites that detail how you can get a Pharm. D degree in 4 years (I assume that's what you refer to by a pharmacology degree because I know from the above posts that we have been discussing a Pharm D. degree). Me thinks it's cause they don't exist. Nice job sounding confident in your lies again though. A lot of people believe that stuff, so way to pull the wool over those eyes. If you ever want to have a serious debate based on fact or substance look me up, but as for these games of call my bluff, leave me out of it. Oh, and just to save you the trouble of trying this again, I'll concende that there are pharmacy programs that involve 4 years of "professional training" that begin 2 years into a college education. Now, while according to your selective math that is technically only 4 years of pharmacy school, any fool knows that means 6 years of college (compared with the 7 necessary to become a doctor or a lawyer....also professionals). How does that compare to your education? Don't bother making somthing up, your credibility is already shot.
From: wackymush [shawn]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 19:47
if a pharmicist is able to refuse to fill a prescription based on the moral ground of being opposed to abortions, they could legitimately refuse any other prescription on any other moral ground they ascribed to so, if say, someone was racist, they would have the choice to deny medicine to someone of a race that they despised deeply, who needed that medicine to survive. the only difference between the racial minority and the woman who needs emergency contraception is the discrimination used
From: kittie
[veil of honesty, how convoluted can you get?]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 19:56
petebest drags out that one point repeatedly. uh-huh, pharmacies are run by businessmen, not doctors, but these guys were acting on religion & morals, not medical training. if i'm not mistaken the pill was found to be safe and there's little argument about that anymore, not among doctors without agendas. i think the state law was put in place because they knew too many doctors would turn down emergency contraceptives without second thought, and emergency contraception being an urgent matter...
From: brainspore [Brainspore]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 20:02
That's not what they're doing. If the were just quietly refraining from joining in, they wouldn't be in the paper. They're not being quiet at all, they're suing the company, even though they broke their contracts(I assume)and the company offered them jobs in Mo where they don't have to sell said product, in hopes that the law will be overturned for violating their 1st amendment rights. They can't challenge the law if they move or quit. That's like saying you can't challenge Hitler if you leave the Nazi party. Besides, shouldn't they be more worried about all the "abortions" than their first amendment rights? Again, these people claim their employers are committing mass murder, and are suing to stay with the company. Sick, sick, sick!
From: doczzz
[dwarf fusion]
Date: 4-Dec-2005 22:22
Gee ChickenHawk3, I'd love to give you a script for some really good shit, but I'm too busy playing God right now... Take two happy pills and call me in the morning. 
From: num1suspect [bondgirl]
Date: 5-Dec-2005 01:27
Here's a concept. In this case, It is LEGAL and thusly, as a pharmacist their duty to dispense LEGAL prescriptions. Yes there are EMERGENCY prescriptions (hmmm... heart medication, insulin...countless others). Now, we do all we can to keep everyone on this overpopulated world alive, and thats another issue. My idea is this. Every anti-abortionist, and namely these pharmacists, should sign an agreement to adopt these likely unwanted, likely to be abused, in foster care, wards of the state, unloved children. If they are found to be fit parents, then, perhaps these women (who WANTS to abort?) don't feel like law-breakers,etc and these morally abiding citzens can put their love and parental guidance where their mouth and script filling hand is. This should also be a qualification for anti-abortion protestors. Did you know most of them are childless men? Even so, lets see what happens when you actually have to act/live/breathe/support and love the fruits of your "beliefs". Interesting concept. Social responsibility to the highest level.
From: jediofporn [Wicked Meat Saber]
Date: 5-Dec-2005 02:43
Wow, Petebest sounds like a self-righteous schmuck, doesn't he? Considering you're the only person still holding on to the "pharmacists are highly trained individuals whose opinions should outweigh the common persons needs" defense strategy, I say "Bravo!" on being a retard. I checked the Walgreen's site and it says nothing about which schools they accept degrees from for Pharmacists. (http://www.walgreens.com/about/careers/pharmacy/careerpath.jsp?cf=ln) Here's a link to a 5 year course (since it says you enter the course in your first year of schooling, it could likley be less than a full 5 years): (http://www.ucd.ie/pharmacol/htmls/undergrad.htm) I'd research for more links, but since you're the only person still arguing this point, I really don't think you're worth the trouble. I allowed that it could take a max. of 6 years for the degree, so no misinformation on my part. The only problem I have in my argument is the bias I obviously have towards retards who impose their personal beliefs on others, primarily in cases where those beliefs inconvenience the needy. Nice try at saying my credibility has been damaged, jackass. Considering this is an online forum, and one at a site like Rotten in the first place, and that I'm new to this place, I hardly say I had credibility to begin with. On top of that, it's not likely I desire credibility since I'm voicing what is really just my opinion (and the opinion of a lot of others). I'm curious how you would respond if a pharmacist said they wouldn't sell you something you really needed and had a scrip for. I'm sure your reaction will have something to do with your wife being a pharmacist (which means you aren't one of us who have to deal with asshole specialists, because you've got one in your pocket...so this couldn't happen to you). You have no credibility here, begone! lol...FTW, you suck.
From: mindwarp [pithy quote]
Date: 5-Dec-2005 04:06
here's my post again, minus the small but important error: Human sacrifice - that's a crime of commission, which infringes the rights of another person. Choosing not to deal with certain products though, is at worst a crime of ommission, which does not infringe anyone's rights. It's much the same as defying the draft.
From: multianimus [Many-Minded]
Date: 5-Dec-2005 05:07
i cant even believe that this is still an issue. at all. if you dont do your job, you lose your job. go to a different goddamned pharmacy. youre lucky walgreens offered you jobs in other states, where you can legally refuse to fill these prescriptions. take the job and say thank you. jesus. this may have already been mentioned, but if there were a vegan working at the supermarket, and he refuses to sell meat or cheese or milk, fire his ass! hes no good at his job. i just dont get why this is so difficult for people to comprehend.
From: petebest [petebest]
Date: 5-Dec-2005 06:03
Dear Jediofporn: Your game of call my bluff is getting really tedious, but here we go again. Begin. Nice job on finding a foriegn school that offers a pharmacolgy degree in 5 years. Wonder whether that degree is valid in the U.S. to practice as a pharmacist. Before you answer that with a lie I will correct you with the truth. NO. Continue. You mentioned, again with confidence, that a pharmacist takes, max, 6 years of schooling. Which I think is substantial, guess you don't. What kind of degree do you have again (don't bother lying your lack of education is becoming increasingly apparent by your flailing efforts). Finally. Please review the link I sent you from an accredited and respected pharmacy school here in the United States where this argument is taking place. Did you notice how long that degree program is? Oh and just for the record, curiously, the pharmacy school you sent me is in a country where these medications, legally, cannot be sold. Give this up, you are losing.....badly. Why are you even arguing this point? Pharmacists are well trained professionals, nobody debates that.
From: brainspore [Brainspore]
Date: 5-Dec-2005 08:08
It's much the same as defying the draft. No, it's more like volunteering for service, then refusing to go to war and suing the Army when you are subsequently discharged.
From: robwrigley
Date: 5-Dec-2005 08:15
Oh come on guys....I think we just have to give petebest a pass, and move on. He is still bitter about losing HIS job to Ringo. I bet what happened was that he told the other guys he was morally opposed to laying into the backbeat. Rob
From: gavno [The Avenger]
Date: 5-Dec-2005 10:40
It's all very simple. Walgreens hired them to peddle pills, prescribed by a physician. That's the function of these pill counters. They have no say in what's appropriate prescribing for a given client... it's NONE of thier fuckin' business. The know about Walgreen's policy. If they have a problem with it, they should have quit long ago, and opened up thier OWN corner drugstors somewhere, waiting to get run out of business by the pill peddling counter at the Wally World down the road. They now stand in violation of Walgreen's policies. If there was any justice in this world, the fuckers would be filing for unemployment at this moment. FIRE the fuckin' Fundies.
From: jediofporn [Wicked Meat Saber]
Date: 5-Dec-2005 11:54
Meh, I'll give you the education point. It's not that important anyhow and we both simply have polarizing views on it (I think pharmacy isn't as detailed or critical as a doctor and you think pharmacists walk on water or something). Now, try to rationalize anything else said in this forum on the topic (ethics, who has the right to make decisions for who, etc). Obviously you've been avoiding dealing with anything else and centralizing on the education aspect. I do find that 6 years of education is substantial, it beats my 4. However, even the 6 is trumped by the doctor who prescribed the medication. Technically, the pharmacist is not "killing" any babies, the doctor is by writing the scrip and the patient is by taking the pills. Ah, and by the way, it doesn't matter where the school is at since Walgreen's has a program set up to encourage pharmacists from other countries: [walgreens.com] You can go ahead and assume that the US has the greatest pharmacist schooling in the world if you want, but the piece of paper is what counts. If you can fly out of the country, obtain the degree, and fly back and save yourself a year, I think it'd be worth it. And I'm not sure how attacking my education level is going to make much of a difference. I could take an hour and check my grammar and spelling, make sure my references are in line and properly cited, but it won't mean shit anyway. I don't feel like wasting that much time and I have no desire to impress you. Last I checked, you weren't my professor or signing my paychecks, so there's no need for it.
From: elektrodot [kaleigh b]
Date: 5-Dec-2005 12:01
from:robsomethingorother (sorry, dont remember) "And what I see is a woman making broad (no pun intended) generalizations, based on her personal prejudices and concerns." oh? care to tell me how you werent just focusing on how many years a pharmacist goes to college and other dumb crap like that? and sorry, i dont know you, all i know about you is what you post, so all i can make is a generalization. and what the fuck do you mean by prejudices? im prejudiced against people who have no concern for women...ummm yea, thatd be right. wait, why am i even replying, what you said really doesnt even make sense.
From: bigmiker73 [Fat mikey sez Hello]
Date: 5-Dec-2005 13:26
Hey petebest... The pharmacist is the endline in the process. They put the pills in the bottles. They have no "professional opinion" or "judgement" in what transpired between you and your Dr. If they don't like being pills dispensers and want a roll in the patient/Dr interaction.. they can get get a license to pratice medicine. You asking we accept a lesser qualified person deny medical treatment of a more highly trained professional.. because the lesser qualified person is morally againt it. .. and its somehow OK?
From: robwrigley
Date: 5-Dec-2005 14:36
elektrodot: Okay, sweety, calm down. You know how you get when that time of the month rolls around. Don't worry your pretty little head about a single thing. Let us men-folk sort this all out. In fact, why don't you run that cute ass of yours into the kitchen, and fix up some dinner? If you need help lifting something heavy, or maybe getting that jar of Crisco open, don't be afraid to ask. Oh, and how about bring us some brews? Hashing out the world's problems is thirsty work. Ain't she a fine catch, fellas? Oh, and one more thing: you might want to hold your cards a little closer to your chest. The whole damned table can see your hand. Rob
From: sciencemonkey [Fuck you! I LIKE being vivisected!]
Date: 5-Dec-2005 14:41
This debate has been great!!! Thanks to everybody!! I have to tell y'all that I used to teach an advanced physiology lab class to Pharmacy students that was also part of the senior zoology/biology undergraduate program at the university where I taught while I was working on a PhD before I went off and got my Medical Doctorate - so with 8 years post graduate study everybody can kiss my learned ass!!! A lot (most) of the students were great BUT (always!) some of the Pharmacy students were TOTAL ASSHOLES!! It was a well known fact and lots of the graduate students like me never wanted to teach the class for just that reason, but I loved teaching it it cuz we got to VIVISECT bunnies and PUMP 'EM FULL of DRUGS and watch what it did to them and then we would turn the students loose to try and explain why some bunnies reacted DIFFERENTLY to the SAME drug at the SAME DOSE. Good thought process for Pharmacists who are supposed to worry about things like appropriate dosing, individual variation in response to a drug and potentially harmful drug interactions - like did your shrink give you a med that is gonna kill you if you take it with the blood pressure meds your family practitioner gave you (that IS a pharmacist's job, not interpreting the ethics of a particular prescription.) Most of the zoology kids loved the class, but the PHARMACY students - OH MY GOD!! - they bitched up a storm - it was SO HARD and SO MUCH WORK! It was gonna RUIN THEIR 4.0 and cost them their DREAM JOB!!! We even had one Pharm student who claimed to be an ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVIST so she could get out of the class!! Ha - no luck: she had signed the agreement form upon her acceptance to the Pharm program which clearly stated that she needed to kill animals if she wanted to be a pill counter. Animal Rights activist pharmacist? That makes no sense considering that ALL the drugs she was wanting to hand out had ALREADY been tested on (guess what) ANIMALS!!! (Of course if she wanted to do a good deed and offer herself up for medical experiments I'd have supported her!) Which gets me to my long-winded point: Just having a "professional" degree just means you've been exposed to a certain body of knowledge and that you were able to regurgitate the facts on exams well enough to get a degree and then a license. You can still be a MORON and have an advanced degree - trust me I KNOW!! The running joke was that the Pharmacy students were failed MD wannabees which was why they had to act so superior and all knowing. These asshole pharmacists in Illinois are probably just the same sort but with a holier-than-thou bible whacking bent as well. Since I get to write prescriptions, I would never send anyone anywhere where they might run into these jerks - my prescription: my liability - fuck you if you don't want to fill it - I'll just purchase a supply of whatever for those who need it and cut out the middleman pharmacy entirely. Trust me - word travels fast and Walgreens is simply making sure these twits don't keep costing them clients. Nobody is forcing them to be pharmacists. These pharmacists aren't playing God - they are playing doctor. Not even God can do that, unless he/she produces the appropriate license and until that happens God can keep his medical opinions to himself!! And so can the religious right wing!
From: rochellerochelle [spanky is my fish]
Date: 5-Dec-2005 18:55
Oh Lord!! Save me from your Followers!!! Dumb fucking Pill counters. You dont want to sell them, then quit.
From: wolfear [Othello]
Date: 6-Dec-2005 08:12
From: petebest [petebest] Date: 3-Dec-2005 10:22 This is stupid. You cannot suspend pharmacists for not prescribing drugs that they are morally opposed to. I don't care what the drug is, if they are opposed they should be able to tell the person to go elsewhere. This is akin to forcing a doctor to perform an abortion just because he has the proper license and the proper training. Professionals, especially informed men of science, should have the right to only offer services that they feel morally and ethically confident in. Ok let's look at this logically. I am a Paramedic and I am morally opposed to people riding on motorcycles w/out helmets. But since I live and work in Iowa the state says you can ride you motorcycle w/ or w/out a helmet. I don't have the choice to not render aid to somebody that splattered their brains on the highway because they are stupid. Guess what I took the job to do what is needed regardless of how I feel about the situation. These guys are in a position where they really don't have a choice. The state says you can't refuse to fill a prescription so.... fill the friggin prescription or move to another state. Just my opinion.
From: petebest [petebest]
Date: 6-Dec-2005 11:31
Wolfear, I acknowledged similar siutations in a later post, and reserved my opinion to non-emergeny situations. Certainly a doctor could be expected to perform an emergency abortion to save a mothers life, basic double effect stuff, no problem there. My issue is the State imposing morally offesive decisions on professionals in non-emergency situations.
From: jediofporn [Wicked Meat Saber]
Date: 6-Dec-2005 14:48
In response to petebest: "Your game of call my bluff is getting really tedious, but here we go again." So you admit that you're lying, nice. I had assumed you were, but it's nice that you finally admit it. "Nice job on finding a foriegn school that offers a pharmacolgy degree in 5 years. Wonder whether that degree is valid in the U.S. to practice as a pharmacist. Before you answer that with a lie I will correct you with the truth. NO." You asked me to do it, so I ask you, where's your evidence? Linkage? You haven't linked to anything backing your words, are we supposed to accept you as an authority on the matter because you say you're married to a pharmacist? It's likely you're single and living in your mama's basement. Unless you show me links, I cannot accept your claims. "You mentioned, again with confidence, that a pharmacist takes, max, 6 years of schooling. Which I think is substantial, guess you don't. What kind of degree do you have again (don't bother lying your lack of education is becoming increasingly apparent by your flailing efforts)." So, in other words, you're saying that I was initially right but that you disagree with my view that pharmacists aren't all that special. Just admit it, unless you think it weakens your claims, which I don't think it's possible they could be made any weaker than they already are. "Oh and just for the record, curiously, the pharmacy school you sent me is in a country where these medications, legally, cannot be sold." Inconsequential detail. Just because the medication isn't sold there does not mean the degree from that country cannot be used to gain a job in a country where the drug is used. That'd be like saying a doctor wouldn't be able to move here and practice (after fulfilling whatever is necessary to do so) just because his country of origin did not use a certain procedure for one type of injury. Once again, you're condescending, you ask verification of facts when you do not do so yourself, and you insist that your intelligence is greater even though overlook the simple point that you are being a hypocrite. You've asked me for links for one claim that I made, yet have provided none for the numerous claims you've made and for the rebuttals to my own claims (one of which provided a link). The only thing that is being confirmed here is that I'm a raving lunatic who cannot drop an issue and you're a fucking moron who cannot see how snobbish and hypocritical they are being. Aside from that, you still haven't touched any of the other comments made in this forum or by me, which lends me to believe that you cannot think of any way to contest those issues and views.
From: elektrodot [kaleigh b]
Date: 6-Dec-2005 15:58
to:robwrigley hmm. great story rob. guess your just gettin' lonely, what with your haitian mail order bride out hookin' again. all i could do would be to make fun of your extremely small penis or something because you already know you would not win this argument with me (hence why youve taken to making up little sad stories)
From: robwrigley
Date: 7-Dec-2005 00:03
Yes, fine. I have a tiny cock, and not so much as a mail-order Haitian bride (why would you even wish such a thing on the Haitians?). But, hey, at least I can type. If you take the time to write properly, and present your arguments, rather than make accusations, I'll take you seriously. Fair enough? If you think a woman's rights and needs supersede any other considerations, present your argument, and make your case. Firing off accusations and making broad generalizations doesn't add anything to the dialog, or advance your case in any way. In fact, it does just the opposite. For my own part, I don't think the 'theoretcal lady' is relevant to my argument. The pharmacist could be refusing to sell tic-tacs. He still is violating his contract, and is acting in bad faith with regards to his employer That is it, the sum total of my case. Rob
Updated: 9-Dec-2005 10:25
| 
