Not at a public hospital he can't.

 

I guess the best solution is to ensure that if there is a pharmacist working who would not dispense the morning-after pill due to religious beilefs, the pharmacy will have another pharmacist on site that will.

 

Everyone wins?

I agree. I think that is a more than admirable solution.

And pharmacists who have been in the field for years would just now be researching if they want to be pharmacists...?

 

Clearly I was referring to those not yet licensed.

 

OK. But aren't these pharmacists already in the field? I was replying to these pharmacists should just quit and shouldn't have been pharmacists to begin with. They have a legit right to work to get the law changed if that is what they believe. They may loose, but citizens have that right in this country.

OK. But aren't these pharmacists already in the field? I was replying to these pharmacists should just quit and shouldn't have been pharmacists to begin with. They have a legit right to work to get the law changed if that is what they believe. They may loose, but citizens have that right in this country.

 

 

Obviously they are. What that has to do with my suggestion for those that aren't yet, I fail to see..

Obviously they are. What that has to do with my suggestion for those that aren't yet, I fail to see..

 

You statements were never that clear Steff. We were talking about THIS case, not some future case in some future world. You seemed to be blaming these people for not thinking about this in the past. So clearly, you were not that clear if both Tex and I were misunderstanding your case.

Edited December 1, 200520 yr by Kid Gleason

You statements were never that clear Steff. We were talking about THIS case, not some future case in some future world. You seemed to be blaming these people for not thinking about this in the past. So clearly, you were not that clear if both Tex and I were misunderstanding your case.

 

 

This isn't clear to you...?

 

What's the difficulty when researching a potential career - one that requires planning and schooling - not to pick one that will test your morals...?

One doesn't wake up one morning, decide to be a pharmacist, and hop in the car for an interview at the local Walgreens..

 

If not.. perhaps ask for clarification rather then assuming..

This isn't clear to you...?

If not.. perhaps ask for clarification rather then assuming.. 

 

No, that's clear in the fact that you made that statement, but it could be reflecting to where these guys went wrong with their career choices years ago. I dont think the one having a problem here is me, since Tex also misread you. I think you are having a problem successfully backpeddling...again.

Not at a public hospital he can't.

 

I guess the best solution is to ensure that if there is a pharmacist working who would not dispense the morning-after pill due to religious beliefs, the pharmacy will have another pharmacist on site that will.

 

Everyone wins?

 

First off, that makes a lot of sense in pharmacies with more than one pharmacist on duty.

 

The next area gets a little tricky.

 

A Doctor is obliged to prescribe treatments that in their opinion work and first of all will "do no harm". If the Doctor believes the treatment will "do harm" he has no obligation to offer that treatment. So if the Doctor believes a blood transfusion will do harm, he doesn't have to offer it. So yes, he can be within full compliance with his Hippocratic Oath, be in a public hospital, and not prescribe that treatment. The patient has the opportunity if they like, to seek out a second opinion.

 

You can't walk in and demand to have your apendix removed. So you can't demand a treatment, and the Doctor doesn't have to offer a treatment that they think will do harm. How would a Doctor be forced to offer a treatment?

 

Now, this does open the Doctor up for a malpractice suit, and he will have to defend that his treatment offered a chance of cure and did not veer too far from established medical practices.

No, that's clear in the fact that you made that statement, but it could be reflecting to where these guys went wrong with their career choices years ago. I dont think the one having a problem here is me, since Tex also misread you. I think you are having a problem successfully backpeddling...again.

 

 

 

It could be... but it wasn't. So I clarified, twice.

 

Tex's actions are calculated so his opinion is moot.

 

I'm clarifying for you.. that I was referring to those researching a potential career as a pharmacist.

 

We done?

Then go work somewhere where it's legal to refuse to fill a script of something you are against.

 

 

 

'kay...sometimes it's easier said than done.

 

 

 

What's the difficulty when researching a potential career - one that requires planning and schooling - not to pick one that will test your morals...?

One doesn't wake up one morning, decide to be a pharmacist, and hop in the car for an interview at the local Walgreens..

 

See y'all later. I see where this one is going.

It could be... but it wasn't. So I clarified, twice.

 

Tex's actions are calculated so his opinion is moot.

 

I'm clarifying for you.. that I was referring to those researching a potential career as a pharmacist.

 

You done?

 

What do you mean by calculated? That I actually think before typing? That I actually would like to convey meaning and carry on a conversation?

What do you mean by calculated? That I actually think before typing? That I actually would like to convey meaning and carry on a conversation?

 

 

I clarified twice my reference.

 

Go "get" someone else. :rolly

I clarified twice my reference.

 

Go "get" someone else.  :rolly

 

There's something about a pot and a kettle...what is that??? :headshake

 

Before this turns to "banning" territory for me...I'm going to go hang someplace else for a spell.

There's something about a pot and a kettle...what is that???  :headshake

 

Before this turns to "banning" territory for me...I'm going to go hang someplace else for a spell.

 

 

 

I don't see why you would be banned. Unless it would have something to do with the pot/kettle comment.. what is that? Stirring the pot..?

 

 

And I can see how you may have (obviously did) misunderstand the course of my posting. I should have combined my comment about those (like your father in law) in the field who can appeal the law, and those not yet in the field.

Guess I'm wacky, I side with the pharmacists on this one. Especially with a pill THAT controversial. Regular birth control is one thing, but this one I understand why some would NOT want to be a part of it. Call me crazy. Oh, and no need to argue with me on it, I won't change my views on this pill. 

 

It's like a Christian Scientist surgeon refusing to perform Open Heart surgery because he doesn't agree with the morality of the operation.

 

Do your job or find a new one.

It is one thing to prevent a pregnancy via birth control pills, it is another to terminate an existing pregnancy.

The morning after pill does not terminate an existing pregnancy. It is a high dose of hormones which still is designed to prevent a pregnancy from ever starting.

Here's the thing I don't get. If you want to refuse service to a patient, that's fine and all I guess. But if you do it in direct violation of the company's rules, why shouldn't you be punished?

 

If the ethics of the company I work for bother me, I leave. Why shouldn't someone else do the same?

 

Ordinarily, I don't really support the rights of the company - but I do in this case. It's one thing to discriminate against someone for who or what they are. It's another to do so because of what they do or refuse to do.

Just got back from Walgreens, y'all. I start on monday as their new Pharmacist!

 

who knew it was that easy!!!!!

Just got back from Walgreens, y'all. I start on monday as their new Pharmacist!

 

who knew it was that easy!!!!!

 

 

 

:finger

Now, this does open the Doctor up for a malpractice suit, and he will have to defend that his treatment offered a chance of cure and did not veer too far from established medical practices.

 

And in the real world, the hospital that employed this doctor would be f***ed ten ways to Sunday, even if this doctor was technically in the right. Especially if it's in a public hospital, where a doctor with those beliefs has no business working in the first place.

:finger

 

the b****/name calling fest wouldn't be official until I got the finger from Stef!!!

the b****/name calling fest wouldn't be official until I got the finger from Stef!!!     

 

 

 

Bring it on, sista...

i wish this pill was around when some of these posters were conceived

 

 

actually, i'm not sure this is sarcastic...

Edited December 1, 200520 yr by sec159row2

i wish this pill was around when some of these posters were conceived   

I'd have been all right, cuz my local pharmo is a HARRDKOAR MUTHAf***A who don't play by society's little ROOLZ.....

Here's the thing I don't get. If you want to refuse service to a patient, that's fine and all I guess. But if you do it in direct violation of the company's rules, why shouldn't you be punished?

 

If the ethics of the company I work for bother me, I leave. Why shouldn't someone else do the same?

 

Ordinarily, I don't really support the rights of the company - but I do in this case. It's one thing to discriminate against someone for who or what they are. It's another to do so because of what they do or refuse to do.

 

I fully agree that they should be punished if it is against rules. I just respect them for sticking to their beliefs. That's all.