Options

Moral Refusal Clauses - Evil Or Very Evil?

1235714

Posts

  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    do you think that the pharmacist's morals should be given equal footing with the health and well-being of an individual?

    Actually I think they should be given greater footing. The health and well-being of any individual is not any particular pharmacist's responsibility unless that pharmacist chooses it to be.

    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
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    do you think that the pharmacist's morals should be given equal footing with the health and well-being of an individual?

    Actually I think they should be given greater footing. The health and well-being of any individual is not any particular pharmacist's responsibility unless that pharmacist chooses it to be.

    Wow dude. Wow.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    So, when can we just tell people who think Plan B is murder that they're just wrong?

    200 years ago it was A-Okay to hate Blacks. Now it's not. You don't get to keep your job as a waiter if you won't serve Blacks. Because that's not okay. You're wrong. Not wrong in a "2+2=5" verifiable kind of way, but in the following way:
    "This is where society currently stands, and you are wrong. 200 years ago you would not have been wrong, but now you are wrong and this is not acceptable. Start serving Black people or you're fired. Your beliefs are wrong."

    Did everyone hear that? Your beliefs can be wrong .

    This isn't kindergarten, there are stupid questions. And there are wrong beliefs. Not objectifiably-physics-proven-wrong, but wrong enough that you can get your ass kicked out of work for it. And that's how it should be with Plan B as well.

    King Boo Hoo on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited June 2008
    I'll also add that while I think a pharmacist should be able to opt-out of providing medications for moral reasons, I also think the owner should be able to fire his ass for non-fulfillment of duties. Ditto with doctors and non-emergency procedures. If the owner wants to work with you, great. If not, sucks to be you - you shouldn't have a constitutional right to a job that caters to your religious beliefs when those beliefs affect your ability to perform your job.

    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
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    do you think that the pharmacist's morals should be given equal footing with the health and well-being of an individual?

    Actually I think they should be given greater footing. The health and well-being of any individual is not any particular pharmacist's responsibility unless that pharmacist chooses it to be.

    "Hey, sorry I forgot to tell you about those nasty side-effects when I filled your prescription, but I didn't choose to care enough about your health and well-being to be bothered. Toodles!"

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    do you think that the pharmacist's morals should be given equal footing with the health and well-being of an individual?

    Actually I think they should be given greater footing. The health and well-being of any individual is not any particular pharmacist's responsibility unless that pharmacist chooses it to be.

    Wow dude. Wow.

    Frankly, I don't see how that's an extreme statement, or how it is out of line with how any other non-emergency medical professional or any professional in any industry is expected to operate.

    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
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    do you think that the pharmacist's morals should be given equal footing with the health and well-being of an individual?

    Actually I think they should be given greater footing. The health and well-being of any individual is not any particular pharmacist's responsibility unless that pharmacist chooses it to be.

    Wow dude. Wow.


    Guys, I'm sorry for going on a tangent, is there a legal obligation in the US to help victims of car accidents if you're first on the scene?

    Edit: And by legal obligation, I mean you face actual charges if you don't.

    zeeny on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    do you think that the pharmacist's morals should be given equal footing with the health and well-being of an individual?

    Actually I think they should be given greater footing. The health and well-being of any individual is not any particular pharmacist's responsibility unless that pharmacist chooses it to be.

    Wow dude. Wow.

    I'm not sure if I agree with Feral, but I'm also not sure I disagree. In general, the standards for imposing positive action on an individual should be pretty damned high. Like, life-and-death high.

    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
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited June 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    do you think that the pharmacist's morals should be given equal footing with the health and well-being of an individual?

    Actually I think they should be given greater footing. The health and well-being of any individual is not any particular pharmacist's responsibility unless that pharmacist chooses it to be.

    Wow dude. Wow.


    Guys, I'm sorry for going on a tangent, is there a legal obligation in the US to help victims of car accidents if you're first on the scene?

    Some places have good samaritan laws. Most don't. In that specific case, I'd be surprised if they did, because there's a potential danger for the prospective hero. Like, the car could explode, the accident could compel another car to swerve into the hero, etc. You can't really legally require a random person to put his life at risk to help someone.

    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
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    do you think that the pharmacist's morals should be given equal footing with the health and well-being of an individual?

    Actually I think they should be given greater footing. The health and well-being of any individual is not any particular pharmacist's responsibility unless that pharmacist chooses it to be.

    "Hey, sorry I forgot to tell you about those nasty side-effects when I filled your prescription, but I didn't choose to care enough about your health and well-being to be bothered. Toodles!"

    I don't know whether you merely misunderstood me or whether you are strawmanning me.

    A pharmacist that is rendering services to a customer has a responsibility to render those services in an ethical manner. That does not and should not mean that they have a responsibility to render services at all.

    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
    INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt with blood on my teeth Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Nope. The point I'm making is that it's not as simple as Feral would like to make it out to be. The people trying to get these clauses written get them written as broadly as possible. So Feral saying "let's ignore emergency care" is a bit naive. That said, as I pointed out - it's pretty reprehensible to tell a woman with severe, disfiguring acne that she can't be treated for it because you don't believe in contraception. (And if you don't think those are linked, then you don't understand how an Accutane script works.)

    Accutane is not a controlled substance (neither are hormonal birth control pills). If a patient can't find a pharmacist in the area that will dispense them, they can be easily mail-ordered.

    This also applies to PirateJon's statement about antibiotics above.

    You don't understand how Accutane is prescribed, then. And "mail-order" is a bullshit copout - not everyone can easily order the medication that way.

    Again, it comes down to the question I asked earlier that you tried to sidestep - do you think that the pharmacist's morals should be given equal footing with the health and well-being of an individual? Your arguments lead me to think you do.

    Why don't you stop repeating how nobody knows how accutane works and feeling smug about it and just state it clearly so that people know what kind of point you're trying to make?

    INeedNoSalt on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    In general, the standards for imposing positive action on an individual should be pretty damned high. Like, life-and-death high.

    Yep, that's pretty much what I'm saying.

    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
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Nope. The point I'm making is that it's not as simple as Feral would like to make it out to be. The people trying to get these clauses written get them written as broadly as possible. So Feral saying "let's ignore emergency care" is a bit naive. That said, as I pointed out - it's pretty reprehensible to tell a woman with severe, disfiguring acne that she can't be treated for it because you don't believe in contraception. (And if you don't think those are linked, then you don't understand how an Accutane script works.)

    Accutane is not a controlled substance (neither are hormonal birth control pills). If a patient can't find a pharmacist in the area that will dispense them, they can be easily mail-ordered.

    This also applies to PirateJon's statement about antibiotics above.

    You don't understand how Accutane is prescribed, then. And "mail-order" is a bullshit copout - not everyone can easily order the medication that way.

    Again, it comes down to the question I asked earlier that you tried to sidestep - do you think that the pharmacist's morals should be given equal footing with the health and well-being of an individual? Your arguments lead me to think you do.

    Why don't you stop repeating how nobody knows how accutane works and feeling smug about it and just state it clearly so that people know what kind of point you're trying to make?

    I think he's talking about the registry website the FDA set up for Accutane patients. As far as I know, that doesn't prevent Accutane from being mail-ordered but I might be wrong, because I haven't really looked at it in great detail. I think the registry is stupid and pointless anyway and needs to die in a fire.

    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
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    do you think that the pharmacist's morals should be given equal footing with the health and well-being of an individual?

    Actually I think they should be given greater footing. The health and well-being of any individual is not any particular pharmacist's responsibility unless that pharmacist chooses it to be.

    Wow dude. Wow.


    Guys, I'm sorry for going on a tangent, is there a legal obligation in the US to help victims of car accidents if you're first on the scene?

    Edit: And by legal obligation, I mean you face actual charges if you don't.

    They've tried to pass such laws (hell they were the subject of the Seinfeld series finale), but I don't think they've passed legal muster here.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    do you think that the pharmacist's morals should be given equal footing with the health and well-being of an individual?

    Actually I think they should be given greater footing. The health and well-being of any individual is not any particular pharmacist's responsibility unless that pharmacist chooses it to be.

    "Hey, sorry I forgot to tell you about those nasty side-effects when I filled your prescription, but I didn't choose to care enough about your health and well-being to be bothered. Toodles!"

    I don't know whether you merely misunderstood me or whether you are strawmanning me.

    A pharmacist that is rendering services to a customer has a responsibility to render those services in an ethical manner. That does not and should not mean that they have a responsibility to render services at all.

    Hey, sorry man, but I can't help you. I don't like you Black people. Yeah, now that lynching isn't available I don't really have many ways left to show you how much I hate you. But fortunately, I can go ahead and make your lives as inconvenient as possible, because it's my choice who I treat, based on my beliefs. And my belief is you're not worth helping.

    ...it's my beliefs though! That means they're okay, right?

    King Boo Hoo on
  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    do you think that the pharmacist's morals should be given equal footing with the health and well-being of an individual?

    Actually I think they should be given greater footing. The health and well-being of any individual is not any particular pharmacist's responsibility unless that pharmacist chooses it to be.

    Wow dude. Wow.


    Guys, I'm sorry for going on a tangent, is there a legal obligation in the US to help victims of car accidents if you're first on the scene?

    Edit: And by legal obligation, I mean you face actual charges if you don't.

    They've tried to pass such laws (hell they were the subject of the Seinfeld series finale), but I don't think they've passed legal muster here.

    I think there may actually be a requirement for specific circumstances, if you're an off-duty emt you can't just give them the finger and skip away. I know they used to have some stuff connected to knowing CPR and things, but I seem to recall it maybe expiring and not actually being adopted as permanent law?

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Nope. The point I'm making is that it's not as simple as Feral would like to make it out to be. The people trying to get these clauses written get them written as broadly as possible. So Feral saying "let's ignore emergency care" is a bit naive. That said, as I pointed out - it's pretty reprehensible to tell a woman with severe, disfiguring acne that she can't be treated for it because you don't believe in contraception. (And if you don't think those are linked, then you don't understand how an Accutane script works.)

    Accutane is not a controlled substance (neither are hormonal birth control pills). If a patient can't find a pharmacist in the area that will dispense them, they can be easily mail-ordered.

    This also applies to PirateJon's statement about antibiotics above.

    You don't understand how Accutane is prescribed, then. And "mail-order" is a bullshit copout - not everyone can easily order the medication that way.

    Again, it comes down to the question I asked earlier that you tried to sidestep - do you think that the pharmacist's morals should be given equal footing with the health and well-being of an individual? Your arguments lead me to think you do.

    Why don't you stop repeating how nobody knows how accutane works and feeling smug about it and just state it clearly so that people know what kind of point you're trying to make?

    I think he's talking about the registry website the FDA set up for Accutane patients. As far as I know, that doesn't prevent Accutane from being mail-ordered but I might be wrong, because I haven't really looked at it in great detail. I think the registry is stupid and pointless anyway and needs to die in a fire.

    Yeah, because brainless babies are really great.

    Accutane is used in the treatment of severe skin disorders. It also makes thalidomide look like a placebo in terms of fetal damage. In order for a woman of childbearing age to be on Accutane, she needs to provide proof of current contraception use.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    It was? Newsflash - the Constitution is all about personal autonomy. Not prohibiting abortions is part of that.
    You've boiled it all down with stunning acumen. Or not. Thanks for the newsflash, though.

    I'm just saying that the trip from point A to point B in the RvW decision is one that touches on a lot of different aspects of Consitutional law, and ties them together in an unusual manner. It doesn't mean it's all wrong, those Justices were smarter and more experienced than I, but it does mean that a whole new branch of legal study and legal possiblity was spawned with what they wrangled from existing laws and precedent. States have had, and will continue to have, all kinds of creative options to challenge the spirit of RvW, and each will touch on a myriad of legal and ethical issues and be difficult to untangle.

    Yar on
  • Options
    EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Out of curiosity, is there a legal definition for what a pharmacy is? Is a license required? Or could I go out and start "Joe's Pharmacy" and even advertise it, even though all I can sell are leftover aspirins? If the former, and thus there are some legally recognized standards of what a pharmacy can and/or must sell, I can see this being a more cut and dry case.

    EmperorSeth on
    You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
  • Options
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    do you think that the pharmacist's morals should be given equal footing with the health and well-being of an individual?

    Actually I think they should be given greater footing. The health and well-being of any individual is not any particular pharmacist's responsibility unless that pharmacist chooses it to be.

    Wow dude. Wow.


    Guys, I'm sorry for going on a tangent, is there a legal obligation in the US to help victims of car accidents if you're first on the scene?

    Some places have good samaritan laws. Most don't. In that specific case, I'd be surprised if they did, because there's a potential danger for the prospective hero. Like, the car could explode, the accident could compel another car to swerve into the hero, etc. You can't really legally require a random person to put his life at risk to help someone.

    Thank you.
    Where I am, there is such a law(it's not applied, but it exists on the books.).
    Edit: I'm not sure how it is in the States, CPR training is mandatory before getting a driving license here and the law assumes that any driver has competence enough to "save lives". My personal guess is almost all live saving attempts would end with what many would call "murder".

    I'm almost agreeing with Feral that pharmacists should have the right to refuse service based on morals, but I also believe that this should be made loud and clear with alternative contacts listed for getting the medicine or help you need.
    I'm not sure about rural communities, is there no way the same to be applied there? What I read from the dailykos suggestions a couple of pages ago seemed pretty sensible.

    zeeny on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Accutane is used in the treatment of severe skin disorders. It also makes thalidomide look like a placebo in terms of fetal damage. In order for a woman of childbearing age to be on Accutane, she needs to provide proof of current contraception use.

    If you like to have a discussion about the Accutane registry I would be happy to have one with you but I think that would derail this thread.

    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
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Accutane is used in the treatment of severe skin disorders. It also makes thalidomide look like a placebo in terms of fetal damage. In order for a woman of childbearing age to be on Accutane, she needs to provide proof of current contraception use.

    If you like to have a discussion about the Accutane registry I would be happy to have one with you but I think that would derail this thread.

    Well, what's your problem with it?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    khainkhain Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    do you think that the pharmacist's morals should be given equal footing with the health and well-being of an individual?

    Actually I think they should be given greater footing. The health and well-being of any individual is not any particular pharmacist's responsibility unless that pharmacist chooses it to be.

    Wow dude. Wow.


    Guys, I'm sorry for going on a tangent, is there a legal obligation in the US to help victims of car accidents if you're first on the scene?

    Edit: And by legal obligation, I mean you face actual charges if you don't.

    Wikipedia says that the US common law does not require it, but eight states do.

    khain on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Accutane is used in the treatment of severe skin disorders. It also makes thalidomide look like a placebo in terms of fetal damage. In order for a woman of childbearing age to be on Accutane, she needs to provide proof of current contraception use.

    If you like to have a discussion about the Accutane registry I would be happy to have one with you but I think that would derail this thread.

    Well, what's your problem with it?

    I think it's a direct violation of physician-patient confidentiality to require both parties to enter detailed information about sexual history and practices along with their names and contact information into a federally-maintained database.

    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
    Feral wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    do you think that the pharmacist's morals should be given equal footing with the health and well-being of an individual?

    Actually I think they should be given greater footing. The health and well-being of any individual is not any particular pharmacist's responsibility unless that pharmacist chooses it to be.

    "Hey, sorry I forgot to tell you about those nasty side-effects when I filled your prescription, but I didn't choose to care enough about your health and well-being to be bothered. Toodles!"

    I don't know whether you merely misunderstood me or whether you are strawmanning me.

    A pharmacist that is rendering services to a customer has a responsibility to render those services in an ethical manner. That does not and should not mean that they have a responsibility to render services at all.

    So what about the pharmacist in Wisconsin who not only refused to fill a birth control prescription, but refused to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy? Does that fall under the right to refuse to render non-emergency medical services?

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Lawndart wrote: »
    So what about the pharmacist in Wisconsin who not only refused to fill a birth control prescription, but refused to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy? Does that fall under the right to refuse to render non-emergency medical services?

    The scrip is the property of the patient until it's filled. He should have released it back to her so she could have gone elsewhere.

    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
    INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt with blood on my teeth Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I assume pharmacies are staffed by pharmacists but generally owned and operated by larger corporations, is this generally true or untrue?

    INeedNoSalt on
  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    khain wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    do you think that the pharmacist's morals should be given equal footing with the health and well-being of an individual?

    Actually I think they should be given greater footing. The health and well-being of any individual is not any particular pharmacist's responsibility unless that pharmacist chooses it to be.

    Wow dude. Wow.


    Guys, I'm sorry for going on a tangent, is there a legal obligation in the US to help victims of car accidents if you're first on the scene?

    Edit: And by legal obligation, I mean you face actual charges if you don't.

    Wikipedia says that the US common law does not require it, but eight states do.




    I think it's a somewhat different scenario in what the potential losses are.
    If there's a car accident and I'm legally forced to help then I'm:
    1. Using up my time I could be using elsewhere
    2. In potential danger because the car could blow up or catch on fire or something and I just honestly don't know when it looks like it could and when it looks like it couldn't.
    It's not like I'm a trained firefighter, I've never done anything in my life that's indicated I wanted to help people in car accidents.

    Now the pharmacist. If he prescribes Plan B he:
    1. Feels bad?
    And unlike the random driving citizen, he's trained and studied for a very long time precisely to be in the field of giving out medicine.

    King Boo Hoo on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I assume pharmacies are staffed by pharmacists but generally owned and operated by larger corporations, is this generally true or untrue?

    I think, but I am not 100% sure, that the majority of pharmacies in the US are part of corporate chains, yes.

    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
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited June 2008
    I also don't have a problem with imposing some reasonable regulations on someone exercising his right to moral objection. Like, they have to have a list of alternative pharmacies available, and so on. I think there's a way to balance the right of a patient to get his meds with the right of a pharmacist to not violate his morals, though it will likely require each side to compromise.

    Someone mentioned making Plan B OTC - is it safe enough to make it available without a prescription? Like, would popping them all the time, or using them as make-shift contraception, be harmful?

    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
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I think it's a somewhat different scenario in what the potential losses are.
    If there's a car accident and I'm legally forced to help then I'm:
    1. Using up my time I could be using elsewhere
    2. In potential danger because the car could blow up or catch on fire or something and I just honestly don't know when it looks like it could and when it looks like it couldn't.
    It's not like I'm a trained firefighter, I've never done anything in my life that's indicated I wanted to help people in car accidents.

    Now the pharmacist. If he prescribes Plan B he:
    1. Feels bad?
    And unlike the random driving citizen, he's trained and studied for a very long time precisely to be in the field of giving out medicine.

    The car thing was totally tangent and unrelated. I didn't intend it to be a parallel to anything at all...I was just reading Feral's post and it popped out of nowhere so I asked while I was still reading the discussion. I agree that the two scenarios are not identical.

    zeeny on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited June 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    I assume pharmacies are staffed by pharmacists but generally owned and operated by larger corporations, is this generally true or untrue?

    I think, but I am not 100% sure, that the majority of pharmacies in the US are part of corporate chains, yes.

    They certainly are in good sized cities and towns. Longs, Walgreens, other places like that. I don't think you're likely to see too many mom-and-pop pharmacies unless you're in the boonies. By which I mean the South.

    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
    INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt with blood on my teeth Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Then it just makes sense to me that pharmacists should sign a contract that says they're not going to let their own personal morals get in the way of their duty to the company (ie, filling prescriptions and making sure there's no conflicts)

    edit: assuming that the corporation wants paying customers more than they want to be self-righteous

    INeedNoSalt on
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I also don't have a problem with imposing some reasonable regulations on someone exercising his right to moral objection. Like, they have to have a list of alternative pharmacies available, and so on. I think there's a way to balance the right of a patient to get his meds with the right of a pharmacist to not violate his morals, though it will likely require each side to compromise.

    Someone mentioned making Plan B OTC - is it safe enough to make it available without a prescription? Like, would popping them all the time, or using them as make-shift contraception, be harmful?

    Isn't it OTC already in some places? I could swear it was here in OR.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I also don't have a problem with imposing some reasonable regulations on someone exercising his right to moral objection. Like, they have to have a list of alternative pharmacies available, and so on. I think there's a way to balance the right of a patient to get his meds with the right of a pharmacist to not violate his morals, though it will likely require each side to compromise.

    Someone mentioned making Plan B OTC - is it safe enough to make it available without a prescription? Like, would popping them all the time, or using them as make-shift contraception, be harmful?

    I dunno if this is for a larger discussion, but what makes my belief that Black people aren't worthy of medical care a BAD belief, one I can't practice, but my belief that Plan B medication is evil a GOOD belief, one I'm free to use?

    There's no mathematically proveable way of saying what beliefs are good and what beliefs are bad. After all, hating Blacks was fine a few hundred years ago but isn't know. So whether a belief is right or wrong is based on where our society presently stands on the issue. And if that's the case, doesn't having the FDA, DEA, and AMA support Plan B make hating Plan B a BAD belief? One that shouldn't be allowed?

    King Boo Hoo on
  • Options
    deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »

    Someone mentioned making Plan B OTC - is it safe enough to make it available without a prescription? Like, would popping them all the time, or using them as make-shift contraception, be harmful?
    It's a really, really high dose of hormones, so regular use is probably not a good thing. Then again, taking it isn't pleasant so after the first or second time you aren't going to be in a rush to put yourself in a situation to need it again.

    deadonthestreet on
  • Options
    INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt with blood on my teeth Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I also don't have a problem with imposing some reasonable regulations on someone exercising his right to moral objection. Like, they have to have a list of alternative pharmacies available, and so on. I think there's a way to balance the right of a patient to get his meds with the right of a pharmacist to not violate his morals, though it will likely require each side to compromise.

    Someone mentioned making Plan B OTC - is it safe enough to make it available without a prescription? Like, would popping them all the time, or using them as make-shift contraception, be harmful?

    I dunno if this is for a larger discussion, but what makes my belief that Black people aren't worthy of medical care a BAD belief, one I can't practice, but my belief that Plan B medication is evil a GOOD belief, one I'm free to use?

    There's no mathematically proveable way of saying what beliefs are good and what beliefs are bad. After all, hating Blacks was fine a few hundred years ago but isn't know. So whether a belief is right or wrong is based on where our society presently stands on the issue. And if that's the case, doesn't having the FDA, DEA, and AMA support Plan B make hating Plan B a BAD belief? One that shouldn't be allowed?

    I'm pretty sure you can still hate black people if that's your thing, you just can't deny service based on that.

    You see, the difference is black people are people and a drug is not a person.

    INeedNoSalt on
  • Options
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I also don't have a problem with imposing some reasonable regulations on someone exercising his right to moral objection. Like, they have to have a list of alternative pharmacies available, and so on. I think there's a way to balance the right of a patient to get his meds with the right of a pharmacist to not violate his morals, though it will likely require each side to compromise.

    When I was writing my previous post I thought the pharmacist should simply hand over the contact info. Then I figured some people who refuse medicine because of moral issues will not participate in ANY way in the distribution of said medicine and decided lists could do it. I'm still on discovering a rational solution for pharmacies that would refuse even that....making them compromise seems a good idea;o)

    zeeny on
  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Exactly. I understand making pharmacists takes a lot longer than making vending machines, but face the fact: you're a very knowledgable vending machine.

    You're not the physician. You didn't diagnose the patient. You didn't examine the patient. You got a piece of paper that says that a physician says the patient should have a certain medication. If you have an issue with that, you raise it with the physician, not with the patient. Your role is to make sure medications don't overlap, side-effects don't compound, and that there are exactly 60 pills in the canister. Nowhere in your description does it say you get to play vigilante and abuse your role as gate-keeper to medication.

    King Boo Hoo on
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I also don't have a problem with imposing some reasonable regulations on someone exercising his right to moral objection. Like, they have to have a list of alternative pharmacies available, and so on. I think there's a way to balance the right of a patient to get his meds with the right of a pharmacist to not violate his morals, though it will likely require each side to compromise.

    Someone mentioned making Plan B OTC - is it safe enough to make it available without a prescription? Like, would popping them all the time, or using them as make-shift contraception, be harmful?

    Plan B is already available without a prescription for women over the age of 18, but most if not all pharmacies keep it behind the counter. That's when the whole "refusal to dispense" thing comes into play.

    Top o' the page to you edit: I'd think a compromise would be allowing pharmacy owners to decide not to stock things they find morally objectionable, as long as they are legally required to immediately transfer prescriptions to nearby pharmacies that do, and requiring pharmacy employees to dispense legal prescriptions for medicines their pharmacy normally stocks and/or dispenses regardless of that employee's moral objections. Which is what the proposed law I referenced a few pages back pretty much does.

    Lawndart on
This discussion has been closed.