Options

Moral Refusal Clauses - Evil Or Very Evil?

1356714

Posts

  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    just discrimination against people who can't do their job.

    I'm sorry, was that sarcasm or is firing somebody who is physically or intellectually unable to do their job now called "discrimination"?

    I was making fun of the word in the way we usually use it by placing it contexts where it still makes sense but emphasizes how silly some of our "discrimination" policies are.

    King Boo Hoo on
  • Options
    DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    What about a small time owner/operator, or an owner who agrees with the pharmacist?

    DeaconBlues on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    just discrimination against people who can't do their job.

    I'm sorry, was that sarcasm or is firing somebody who is physically or intellectually unable to do their job now called "discrimination"?

    Eh, it's hard to prove you fired someone because they suck at their job. It's easy to make the claim you fired them for prejudice or racism. So it works out to more or less the same thing.


    A girl I work with (I say work, but don't mean it) has been on light duty for 9 months now, has no plans of ever going back to regular duty and is still occupying a full time position. They can't fire her for being "disabled" but she's never going to be worth a shit as an employee.

    (by choice, she's a worthless employee and has been trying to game the system for 3 years to get a sit on her ass and do nothing job)

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    PirateJonPirateJon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    What about a small time owner/operator, or an owner who agrees with the pharmacist?

    That's why we have to use the law. I like the look of the list from the Kos story.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/17/174534/045/226/536744
    a) Require licensed pharmacists to dispense all medication if there are less than two licensed pharmacists on staff. If there are two or more licensed pharmacists on staff, one must be willing to dispense medication in the event of one giving moral objections. (Yes, make this part of the formal licensing, too, and start yanking accreditation and licenses of pharmacists who try to make "moral refusal" cases.)

    b) Formulate a state list of essential medications and require at least one pharmacy per incorporated town (or better yet, one pharmacy per "x amount of people in an area" to cover major metro areas) to be a "state formulary pharmacy". State formulary pharmacies would be required to carry all medications on the formulary (birth control pills and Plan B, and other reproductive health medications, will be included). Revoke licenses of pharmacies who are listed as "primary formulary providers" in their area.

    c) (This could potentially be used in lieu of b) above) Require all pharmacies carrying pregnancy category D or pregnancy category X drugs to also carry all contraceptives, including "the pill", Plan B, condoms, etc. This would be especially effective--and would drive the point home. (The one bad thing is that it does have a loophole--namely, drugstores could opt out of carrying category D or X drugs--but combined with a "formulary pharmacy" law, that could eliminate the issue.)

    (Note that I do not mention mifepristone, aka "RU-486". Due to federal regulations, this can only be given in a doctor's office.)

    d) Require formal accreditation at a legitimate, mainstream pharmacists' association as a condition of hire (such as APhA) and do not let dominionist "parallel economy" groups in as alternate accreditation bodies. One possible way of doing this is requiring continuing medical education (CME) as a condition of pharmacist licensure and only accepting CME credit from legit groups like APhA.

    e) No person is allowed to conduct a "moral refusal" if there is an effect of harming the life or health of the person who is being refused. (Yes, this is the "life or health" exemption. People can be involuntarily committed in cases where their life or health is at risk due to mental illness; the laws which largely prohibit abortion past the 24th week of pregnancy have life and health exemptions (for now); if we're going to allow "moral refusal" at all, put a "life and health" exemption there, too. :D)

    E), I think, will be the biggie here--"if it could cause someone to die or be ill, you don't get to refuse it if you're the only one who can provide it".

    PirateJon on
    all perfectionists are mediocre in their own eyes
  • Options
    DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    What about a small time owner/operator, or an owner who agrees with the pharmacist?

    That's why we have to use the law.

    Forcing a store owner to proivde a non-lifesaving product they have a moral qualm with? Nah.

    Owner decides what gets sold in his store, as long as its legal.

    DeaconBlues on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    What about a small time owner/operator, or an owner who agrees with the pharmacist?

    That's why we have to use the law.

    Forcing a store owner to proivde a non-lifesaving product they have a moral qualm with? Nah.

    Owner decides what gets sold in his store, as long as its legal.

    Yeah, and who cares if he's fucking over the people in his community in the process, eh?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    What about a small time owner/operator, or an owner who agrees with the pharmacist?

    That's why we have to use the law.

    Forcing a store owner to proivde a non-lifesaving product they have a moral qualm with? Nah.

    Owner decides what gets sold in his store, as long as its legal.

    Yeah, and who cares if he's fucking over the people in his community in the process, eh?

    So you admit that your argument above regarding employee insubordination was a red herring?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    What about a small time owner/operator, or an owner who agrees with the pharmacist?

    Depending on the circumstances (like a woman isn't able to acquire a Plan B pill within 72 hours due to her local pharmacy not selling to her and being forced to get an abortion as a result), I'm sure they could have their licenses yanked, or at the very least hit with a law suit.

    No-Quarter on
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Hey, all you folks who say that we should just write a law that bars people from refusing to fulfill Plan-B presciptions, but let's them refuse to fulfill prescriptions that would, say, harm the patient, or that they feel isn't in the patient's best interests for non-moral reasons? Write up such a law. Write one that lets a pharmacist refuse to prescribe something that they think will harm the patient, but doesn't let him refuse to prescribe Plan B or birth control pills.

    Keep in mind that you can't reference "morality" or "religion" anywhere in the bill, and that it has to use very precise definitions to have any effect. When you write it up, we can go ahead and submit it to congress.

    You mean something like the Access to Birth Control Act, which has already been written up and submitted to Congress?

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    PirateJonPirateJon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    What about a small time owner/operator, or an owner who agrees with the pharmacist?

    That's why we have to use the law.

    Forcing a store owner to proivde a non-lifesaving product they have a moral qualm with? Nah.

    Owner decides what gets sold in his store, as long as its legal.

    Says who? We have thousands of laws detailing what can be sold, by who, and for what reasons. Adding one more is trivial. Especially to a closely regulated biz like a pharmacy.

    Allowing medical care to be at the whims of whatever guys shows up to work that day is no way to run a society. As of now, people are using this "moral" refusal to decline filling prescriptions for STD medications and prenatal vitamins to unwed mothers.

    We should be embarrassed it's going on in our country.

    PirateJon on
    all perfectionists are mediocre in their own eyes
  • Options
    No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    What about a small time owner/operator, or an owner who agrees with the pharmacist?

    That's why we have to use the law.

    Forcing a store owner to proivde a non-lifesaving product they have a moral qualm with? Nah.

    Owner decides what gets sold in his store, as long as its legal.

    The non-life saving aspect is fuzzy. By forcing a woman to have a pregnancy or an abortion they are possibly endangering her health. That's also not considering outside factors such as parents that would beat the shit out of her if they found out she got preggers.

    No-Quarter on
  • Options
    DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    What about a small time owner/operator, or an owner who agrees with the pharmacist?

    Depending on the circumstances (like a woman isn't able to acquire a Plan B pill within 72 hours due to her local pharmacy not selling to her and being forced to get an abortion as a result), I'm sure they could have their licenses yanked, or at the very least hit with a law suit.

    Why, I thought abortion was a morally neutral action?

    DeaconBlues on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    SnarfmasterSnarfmaster Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    How so? He never has to tell his employer what his religious beliefs are.
    He does if they ask before hiring him.
    You cannot ask that question as part of the hiring process. It's discriminatory.
    "Is there any reason you would not be able to do anything on this list of services"

    Exactly, If your religion or anything else would prevent you from performing the duties expected of your position you have to let them know. If i'm going in to apply for a job as a weekend security guard and after getting the job I let them know i'm christian and don't work on sundays they have every right to fire my ass.

    Snarfmaster on
  • Options
    skyknytskyknyt Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    What about a small time owner/operator, or an owner who agrees with the pharmacist?

    Depending on the circumstances (like a woman isn't able to acquire a Plan B pill within 72 hours due to her local pharmacy not selling to her and being forced to get an abortion as a result), I'm sure they could have their licenses yanked, or at the very least hit with a law suit.

    Why, I thought abortion was a morally neutral action?

    Morally neutral, but medically much more dangerous than using Plan B.

    skyknyt on
    Tycho wrote:
    [skyknyt's writing] is like come kind of code that, when comprehended, unfolds into madness in the mind of the reader.
    PSN: skyknyt, Steam: skyknyt, Blizz: skyknyt#1160
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    Allowing medical care to be at the whims of whatever guys shows up to work that day is no way to run a society.

    [snide comment]

    You've obviously never been a chronic pain patient.

    [/snide comment]

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    What about a small time owner/operator, or an owner who agrees with the pharmacist?

    Depending on the circumstances (like a woman isn't able to acquire a Plan B pill within 72 hours due to her local pharmacy not selling to her and being forced to get an abortion as a result), I'm sure they could have their licenses yanked, or at the very least hit with a law suit.

    Why, I thought abortion was a morally neutral action?

    What? I don't think you understood me. If a pharmacists' denial of medicine results in a woman being forced to go out and have a procedure such as an abortion or carry a pregnancy to term- either of which could result in injury or death to the patient- then damn straight the pharmacist should be held accountable for their refusal.

    No-Quarter on
  • Options
    PirateJonPirateJon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    @ Feral - hah i fucking wish... I'd say it's part of why I feel strongly about crap like this. FUCK those guys and the DEA and everyone else with the "1000s must suffer so that maybe 1 won't become an addict cause getting high is like stabbing a baby in the face".

    Pain meds are another fucked up thing in society - again most strongly felt along racial and class lines. Did you know that there are medical facilities in africa with only aspirin for AIDS / cancer/ war injury pain while at the same time we burn TONS and TONS of opium that could be made into morphine? War on drugs my ass.

    Bah. sorry for the derail...

    PirateJon on
    all perfectionists are mediocre in their own eyes
  • Options
    DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    skyknyt wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    What about a small time owner/operator, or an owner who agrees with the pharmacist?

    Depending on the circumstances (like a woman isn't able to acquire a Plan B pill within 72 hours due to her local pharmacy not selling to her and being forced to get an abortion as a result), I'm sure they could have their licenses yanked, or at the very least hit with a law suit.

    Why, I thought abortion was a morally neutral action?

    Morally neutral, but medically much more dangerous than using Plan B.

    Define "much more dangerous". How many women die from legal abortions each year?

    And wouldn't that also mean that we should force all stores to sell contraception too, since that's the safest way to go?

    DeaconBlues on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    @ Feral - hah i fucking wish... I'd say it's part of why I feel strongly about crap like this. FUCK those guys and the DEA and everyone else with the "1000s must suffer so that maybe 1 won't become an addict cause getting high is like stabbing a baby in the face".

    Pain meds are another fucked up thing in society - again most strongly felt along racial and class lines. Did you know that there are medical facilities in africa with only aspirin for AIDS / cancer/ war injury pain while at the same time we burn TONS and TONS of opium that could be made into morphine? War on drugs my ass.

    Bah. sorry for the derail...

    The War On Some Drugs is a class issue at its heart.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    dgs095dgs095 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I'm not sure you should be able to force a pharmacy to stock something. But if they have it, they shouldn't be allowed to refuse selling on moral grounds: The store/pharmacy should be forced to have someone on hand who won't object on moral grounds to sell it, or be able to direct the customer to somewhere it will be sold within 10 miles and phone to confirm on the spot the alternate location has and will provide said drug.

    No pharmacy should be allowed to with-hold your proscription (not give you the piece of paper) on moral grounds.

    Objecting on moral grounds should not be: I'm gonna be a jerk and do nothing. If you object on moral grounds you or your store should have to help them obtain what your refusing to give them.

    If there are places where pharmacies simply refuse to stock plan B or "the pill", could we implement an over-the-phone pharmacy system where your birth control gets shipped to your door as unmarked mail?

    dgs095 on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited June 2008
    Lawndart wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Hey, all you folks who say that we should just write a law that bars people from refusing to fulfill Plan-B presciptions, but let's them refuse to fulfill prescriptions that would, say, harm the patient, or that they feel isn't in the patient's best interests for non-moral reasons? Write up such a law. Write one that lets a pharmacist refuse to prescribe something that they think will harm the patient, but doesn't let him refuse to prescribe Plan B or birth control pills.

    Keep in mind that you can't reference "morality" or "religion" anywhere in the bill, and that it has to use very precise definitions to have any effect. When you write it up, we can go ahead and submit it to congress.

    You mean something like the Access to Birth Control Act, which has already been written up and submitted to Congress?

    I know that my wife has, at times, specifically been informed not to take birth control pills because it interferes with another medication she's currently taking. If this bill was passed, and my wife demanded birth control, the pharmacist would required by law to give it to her, even if he knew it would introduce potentially dangerous complications.

    Awesome.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    @ Feral - hah i fucking wish... I'd say it's part of why I feel strongly about crap like this. FUCK those guys and the DEA and everyone else with the "1000s must suffer so that maybe 1 won't become an addict cause getting high is like stabbing a baby in the face".

    Pain meds are another fucked up thing in society - again most strongly felt along racial and class lines. Did you know that there are medical facilities in africa with only aspirin for AIDS / cancer/ war injury pain while at the same time we burn TONS and TONS of opium that could be made into morphine? War on drugs my ass.

    Bah. sorry for the derail...

    Eh, it's alright, I derailed it not you.

    I've seen what the receiving end of denial-of-care issues such as this look like because I had a chronic pain patient as a domestic partner for a couple of years. I don't really want to go into too much detail right now, but let's just say that I've lost count of the number of doctors - including ER doctors - that basically told her to leave and never come back.

    If somebody would have passed a law that said that all migraine patients must be given Dilaudid in the ER if they're having an intractable migraine, it would have made my and my ex-gf's lives so much easier. But despite how much it would have benefited me, I wouldn't be able to justify that law to myself, for the same reasons I've outlined above regarding Plan B.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    PirateJonPirateJon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I know that my wife has, at times, specifically been informed not to take birth control pills because it interferes with another medication she's currently taking. If this bill was passed, and my wife demanded birth control, the pharmacist would required by law to give it to her, even if he knew it would introduce potentially dangerous complications.

    Awesome.
    He could, you know, maybe mention that.

    If somebody would have passed a law that said that all migraine patients must be given Dilaudid in the ER if they're having an intractable migraine, it would have made my and my ex-gf's lives so much easier. But despite how much it would have benefited me, I wouldn't be able to justify that law to myself, for the same reasons I've outlined above regarding Plan B.
    Wait.. what? What you said first - i may have missed something else - was you don't want to legislate "someone being a dick". I think I and other think this loophole for medical care goes beyond not letting a guy pull into your lane in traffic.



    besides, all this "moral" crap is just a cover to punish people for having sex. And that's stupid.


    ed-ed-edit: god i can't post for shit

    PirateJon on
    all perfectionists are mediocre in their own eyes
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    dgs095 wrote: »
    If there are places where pharmacies simply refuse to stock plan B or "the pill", could we implement an over-the-phone pharmacy system where your birth control gets shipped to your door as unmarked mail?

    There's a 72-hour window after conception where Plan B is effective. Assuming that most women don't realize they've conceived until several hours or a day or two after sex, that window is shorter. Ordering it by mail wouldn't work.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Hey, all you folks who say that we should just write a law that bars people from refusing to fulfill Plan-B presciptions, but let's them refuse to fulfill prescriptions that would, say, harm the patient, or that they feel isn't in the patient's best interests for non-moral reasons? Write up such a law. Write one that lets a pharmacist refuse to prescribe something that they think will harm the patient, but doesn't let him refuse to prescribe Plan B or birth control pills.

    Keep in mind that you can't reference "morality" or "religion" anywhere in the bill, and that it has to use very precise definitions to have any effect. When you write it up, we can go ahead and submit it to congress.

    You mean something like the Access to Birth Control Act, which has already been written up and submitted to Congress?

    I know that my wife has, at times, specifically been informed not to take birth control pills because it interferes with another medication she's currently taking. If this bill was passed, and my wife demanded birth control, the pharmacist would required by law to give it to her, even if he knew it would introduce potentially dangerous complications.

    Awesome.

    You know what's even more awesome? Reading the full text of the bill!
    (b) Refusals Pursuant to Standard Pharmacy Practice- This section does not prohibit a pharmacy from refusing to provide a contraceptive to a customer in accordance with any of the following:

    `(1) If it is unlawful to dispense the contraceptive to the customer without a valid, lawful prescription and no such prescription is presented.

    `(2) If the customer is unable to pay for the contraceptive.

    `(3) If the employee of the pharmacy refuses to provide the contraceptive on the basis of a professional clinical judgment.

    Note that "because it may kill you" is much more likely to fall under the "professional clinical judgement" category than "because birth control makes the baby Jesus cry".

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    skyknyt wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    What about a small time owner/operator, or an owner who agrees with the pharmacist?

    Depending on the circumstances (like a woman isn't able to acquire a Plan B pill within 72 hours due to her local pharmacy not selling to her and being forced to get an abortion as a result), I'm sure they could have their licenses yanked, or at the very least hit with a law suit.

    Why, I thought abortion was a morally neutral action?

    Morally neutral, but medically much more dangerous than using Plan B.

    Define "much more dangerous". How many women die from legal abortions each year?

    And wouldn't that also mean that we should force all stores to sell contraception too, since that's the safest way to go?

    If even one woman dies compared to those who take Plan B, then it's more then enough. Also Birth is more dangerous then abortion procedures.

    And that's not even talking about the physical, emotional, and financial burden placed on the woman being forced to jump through hoops because some asshole can't fill a scrip because makes him FEEL BAD.

    EDIT: Not to sound like I'm dodging you're asking about the statistics. I tried some google foo and well....the results made my brain hurt.

    No-Quarter on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    You mean something like the Access to Birth Control Act, which has already been written up and submitted to Congress?

    I know that my wife has, at times, specifically been informed not to take birth control pills because it interferes with another medication she's currently taking. If this bill was passed, and my wife demanded birth control, the pharmacist would required by law to give it to her, even if he knew it would introduce potentially dangerous complications.

    Awesome.

    I don't understand why you would say this without actually reading the bill.
    Provides that a pharmacy is not prohibited from refusing to provide a contraceptive to a customer if: (1) it is unlawful to dispense the contraceptive to the customer without a valid, lawful prescription and no such prescription is presented; (2) the customer is unable to pay for the contraceptive; or (3) the employee of the pharmacy refuses to provide the contraceptive on the basis of a professional clinical judgment.

    I mean, seriously now.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    I'd just like to point out that it's not the pharmacist's fault there are no other pharmacies/clinics in the area, or that the parents will beat the girl, or <insert_circumstance_here>.

    DeaconBlues on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    I'd just like to point out that it's not the pharmacist's fault there are no other pharmacies/clinics in the area, or that the parents will beat the girl, or <insert_circumstance_here>.

    So he should operate without fault for direct circumstances his actions have on people once they walk outside his store.

    Kay.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    And that's not even talking about the physical, emotional, and financial burden placed on the woman being forced to jump through hoops because some asshole can't fill a scrip because makes him FEEL BAD.

    Having a few glasses of wine is good for you and can save lives. Should we mandate that store owners who have moral objections to alcohol stock it so that people aren't inconvenienced?

    DeaconBlues on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I'd just like to point out that it's not the pharmacist's fault there are no other pharmacies/clinics in the area, or that the parents will beat the girl, or <insert_circumstance_here>.

    Nor is the pharamicist "fucking" the community. He is benefitting the community by being their pharmacist when, in this hypothetical, none other exists. He just isn't benefitting them in all the ways one might want him too.

    Yar on
  • Options
    PirateJonPirateJon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Are you really equating emergency contraception (remember - it prevents pregnancy) to anti-oxidants?

    Is your head bad?

    PirateJon on
    all perfectionists are mediocre in their own eyes
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    And that's not even talking about the physical, emotional, and financial burden placed on the woman being forced to jump through hoops because some asshole can't fill a scrip because makes him FEEL BAD.

    Having a few glasses of wine is good for you and can save lives. Should we mandate that store owners who have moral objections to alcohol stock it so that people aren't inconvenienced?

    You're really stretching in here

    A pharmacist's job is to fill scrips for patients and inform them about complications, how to take their medicine, side effects to expect, etc. We aren't talking about imposing some extra duty on a pharmacist because it's "good for you." We're talking about pharmacists being required to DO THEIR JOBS.

    EDIT: Also love how you seem to think that pharmacists who won't give out Plan B because of their own personal values are only causing an "inconvenience" to the woman.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    And maybe we should force day care centers to install condom machines!

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    If somebody would have passed a law that said that all migraine patients must be given Dilaudid in the ER if they're having an intractable migraine, it would have made my and my ex-gf's lives so much easier. But despite how much it would have benefited me, I wouldn't be able to justify that law to myself, for the same reasons I've outlined above regarding Plan B.
    Wait.. what? What you said first - i may have missed something else - was you don't want to legislate "someone being a dick". I think I and other think this loophole for medical care goes beyond not letting a guy pull into your lane in traffic.

    What I said was that I don't believe that professionals should be forced by law to render non-emergency services that they don't want to render. I would be sympathetic to the notion that Plan B could be considered an emergency medication because if it's not taken within 72 hours the consequences would be dire. (After all, we do call it "emergency contraception" for a reason.) Of course, that would open up a whole new can of worms and I think we'd need to be very, very careful how we word and justify such a law.

    However, I don't think that anybody should be forced to dispense non-emergency contraception.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    PirateJonPirateJon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    Nor is the pharamicist "fucking" the community. He is benefitting the community by being their pharmacist when, in this hypothetical, none other exists. He just isn't benefitting them in all the ways one might want him too.
    And what if he decides no blacks? or no mexicans? no one outside his church? Should the people that allow him to operate - local and state government - continue to do so?

    Feral wrote: »
    PirateJon wrote: »
    If somebody would have passed a law that said that all migraine patients must be given Dilaudid in the ER if they're having an intractable migraine, it would have made my and my ex-gf's lives so much easier. But despite how much it would have benefited me, I wouldn't be able to justify that law to myself, for the same reasons I've outlined above regarding Plan B.
    Wait.. what? What you said first - i may have missed something else - was you don't want to legislate "someone being a dick". I think I and other think this loophole for medical care goes beyond not letting a guy pull into your lane in traffic.

    What I said was that I don't believe that professionals should be forced by law to render non-emergency services that they don't want to render. I would be sympathetic to the notion that Plan B could be considered an emergency medication because if it's not taken within 72 hours the consequences would be dire. (After all, we do call it "emergency contraception" for a reason.) Of course, that would open up a whole new can of worms and I think we'd need to be very, very careful how we word and justify such a law.

    However, I don't think that anybody should be forced to dispense non-emergency contraception.

    Why? Is it just the contraception part? or the 'force' part?

    PirateJon on
    all perfectionists are mediocre in their own eyes
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Hey, all you folks who say that we should just write a law that bars people from refusing to fulfill Plan-B presciptions, but let's them refuse to fulfill prescriptions that would, say, harm the patient, or that they feel isn't in the patient's best interests for non-moral reasons? Write up such a law. Write one that lets a pharmacist refuse to prescribe something that they think will harm the patient, but doesn't let him refuse to prescribe Plan B or birth control pills.

    Keep in mind that you can't reference "morality" or "religion" anywhere in the bill, and that it has to use very precise definitions to have any effect. When you write it up, we can go ahead and submit it to congress.

    You mean something like the Access to Birth Control Act, which has already been written up and submitted to Congress?

    I know that my wife has, at times, specifically been informed not to take birth control pills because it interferes with another medication she's currently taking. If this bill was passed, and my wife demanded birth control, the pharmacist would required by law to give it to her, even if he knew it would introduce potentially dangerous complications.

    Awesome.

    Wrong, but thanks for playing. Try reading the text of the bill sometime - that situation is expressly provided for.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    If a pharmacist wanted to decide what patients can and cannot have, they should have gone to medical school. That's like working at a taco bell and deciding to not serve nachos.

    It's your fucking job, you are not the patients physician. There's a reason they don't get a nice MD after their name.

    Education and training. Pharmacists must earn a Pharm.D. degree from an accredited college or school of pharmacy. The Pharm.D. degree has replaced the Bachelor of Pharmacy degree, which is no longer being awarded. To be admitted to a Pharm.D. program, an applicant must have completed at least 2 years of postsecondary study, although most applicants have completed 3 or more years. Other entry requirements usually include courses in mathematics and natural sciences, such as chemistry, biology, and physics, as well as courses in the humanities and social sciences. In 2007, 92 colleges and schools of pharmacy were accredited to confer degrees by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). About 70 percent of Pharm.D. programs require applicants to take the Pharmacy College Admissions Test (PCAT).

    Courses offered at colleges of pharmacy are designed to teach students about all aspects of drug therapy. In addition, students learn how to communicate with patients and other health care providers about drug information and patient care. Students also learn professional ethics, concepts of public health, and medication distribution systems management. In addition to receiving classroom instruction, students in Pharm.D. programs spend about one-forth of their time in a variety of pharmacy practice settings under the supervision of licensed pharmacists.

    Not to cheapen what a Pharmacist does, mine is awesome and quite honestly he keeps a damn fine eye on interactions and such and knows a hell of a lot of information. A lot of people think they're somehow doctors or something, they aren't.



    Edit: About the abortion thing, we have nurses who don't do abortions for "moral reasons" in the surgical department at my work. Of course, they're just using it as an excuse as I've heard them say "I just think they're icky!" a couple of times. I don't really like the ocean, so I didn't become a fucking lifeguard. It's a lame ass law and I think they should be able to fire people over refusing to engage in treatment.



    BZZT.

    Pharmacists are not only very highly-paid professionals (most start at six figures, I believe), but they are very, very knowledgable. I'm assuming this was addressed but after 10 posts I was compelled to post.

    And I'm with Feral in the first few posts, insofar as elective surgery is concerned. Surgeons can choose not to do elective surgeries for any reason they want, moral, religious, laziness, etc. I don't see why a surgeon should be forced to perform a procedure he is not comfortable with. I'm morally opposed to breast reduction surgery* and so I wouldn't perform it.


    *I'm not really morally opposed to breast reduction surgery**


    **The idea makes me sad, though.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    And that's not even talking about the physical, emotional, and financial burden placed on the woman being forced to jump through hoops because some asshole can't fill a scrip because makes him FEEL BAD.

    Having a few glasses of wine is good for you and can save lives. Should we mandate that store owners who have moral objections to alcohol stock it so that people aren't inconvenienced?

    Why would that law be any more or less objectionable than current laws that prevent store owners from selling alcohol to, say, 20 year olds?

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    PirateJon wrote: »
    If somebody would have passed a law that said that all migraine patients must be given Dilaudid in the ER if they're having an intractable migraine, it would have made my and my ex-gf's lives so much easier. But despite how much it would have benefited me, I wouldn't be able to justify that law to myself, for the same reasons I've outlined above regarding Plan B.
    Wait.. what? What you said first - i may have missed something else - was you don't want to legislate "someone being a dick". I think I and other think this loophole for medical care goes beyond not letting a guy pull into your lane in traffic.

    What I said was that I don't believe that professionals should be forced by law to render non-emergency services that they don't want to render. I would be sympathetic to the notion that Plan B could be considered an emergency medication because if it's not taken within 72 hours the consequences would be dire. (After all, we do call it "emergency contraception" for a reason.) Of course, that would open up a whole new can of worms and I think we'd need to be very, very careful how we word and justify such a law.

    However, I don't think that anybody should be forced to dispense non-emergency contraception.

    Why? Is it just the contraception part? or the 'force' part?

    The force part.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This discussion has been closed.