Attack on Conscience Laws in Idaho

[ClydeR]

A woman went to Walgreens to fill her prescription for an anti-bleeding drug. The pharmacist thought the woman might need the drug because she had an abortion. The pharmacist called the nurse to ask why the woman needed the drug. The nurse refused to disclose why the prescription was written. Therefore, the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription.

It sounds like a clear care of the pharmacist exercising his conscience. But apparently Planned Parenthood doesn't see it that way and they are trying to get the pharmacist in trouble.


Idaho Board of Pharmacy Executive Director Mark Johnston confirmed that the board received the complaint alleging that on Nov. 6, a Walgreens pharmacist refused to fill a prescription ordered by one of Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest’s Boise-based nurse practitioners.

The prescription was for a Planned Parenthood patient for Methergine, a medicine used to prevent or control bleeding of the uterus following childbirth or an abortion.

“Methergine is not an abortifacient and it serves multiple purposes in postpartum care,” the practitioner wrote in her complaint. “I believe the pharmacist wrongly applied the conscience protections.

The Idaho Legislature passed a law last year that gives pharmacists and other health care providers the right to refuse to provide any health care service or dispense any drugs that violate their conscience. Lawmakers could readdress the issue this session.

More... (http://www.idahopress.com/news/article_d6a73c14-1eea-11e0-9f44-001cc4c03286.html)

[Androidpk]

Stupid law is stupid.

[Ardwen]

Now if the woman died because of this is said pharmacist liable? How about the idiots that thought this was a good law? Seriously people really need to get a clue and get the fuck out of other peoples lives.

[crb]

I believe a private business has the right to refuse service to customers for any reason. Yes, technically, even based on race, or gender.

I then believe the customer has the right to stand on public land outside the business and protest, or to take their money to another business selling the same product (Riteaid, or Ginger Rhett at CVS?).

[Latrinsorm]

For reference, there is a SavOn pharmacy two blocks away. I thought SavOns were just gas stations, but I guess anything goes in Idaho.

[waywardgs]

I believe a private business has the right to refuse service to customers for any reason. Yes, technically, even based on race, or gender.

I then believe the customer has the right to stand on public land outside the business and protest, or to take their money to another business selling the same product (Riteaid, or Ginger Rhett at CVS?).

Bullshit in this case. You're a pharmacist. Don't be a pharmacist if you don't want to dispense prescription drugs.

Also: The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

[~Rocktar~]

I wonder how long said pharmacist will have a job with Walgreens?

Retail chains don't tend to like the idea of running off paying customers.

[Ardwen]

They like the idea of large denomination lawsuits even less

[phantasm]

If the pharmacist was a black man, and the patient was a KKK member dressed in sheets trying to fill his prescription of viagra....could the pharmacist object in this situation?

http://www.wreckthetapedeck.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/emergency-room-alabama-medical-center-centre-kkk-ku-klux-klan-racist-good-i-hope-he-dies.jpg

[crb]

Bullshit in this case. You're a pharmacist. Don't be a pharmacist if you don't want to dispense prescription drugs.

Also: The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

I didn't say it was legal, I said what I believe.

I believe private individuals and private businesses should be free. Crazy concept, I know. Sometimes letting people be free means they will do something you don't like.

If a business wants to do something to offend customers, then they will lose customers. If all the businesses act the same way, an entrepreneur will see an opening in the market and make a new business to cater to these customers not wanted by the existing businesses.

[waywardgs]

Then you should have said "I believe a private business should have the right," not "I believe a private business has the right." Because in the USA, at the moment, they do not.

You think the free market will correct for injustices. That's a rose-colored view. When we had fire departments operating under the free market concept, people lost their lives while the competing departments fought in the streets over who was going to put the fire out, because the city paid the different fire departments on a per-fire basis. Each fire company competed for fires. That's a free market system, and it didn't work. Do you advocate going back to that system? When you dial 911, do you want three competing fire departments fighting in the street while your house burns down and your family dies? Point is, it doesn't always work.

In this case, we have a person of the medical community who does not want to do the job he was licensed by the state to do. It's as simple as that, and shouldn't be an argument about "free market capitalism". But if you want to bring it there, fine- someone already pointed out the possible consequences of his actions. Should the person unable to get their prescription drugs die while she waits for another pharmacist to set up shop across the street who is willing to DO HIS JOB correctly? This is one of those services that SHOULD have outside regulation, because the free market can't be depended on all the time. It's not a matter of offending customers, or protesting, or any of that. It's about people's lives.

[Latrinsorm]

I didn't say it was legal, I said what I believe.

I believe private individuals and private businesses should be free. Crazy concept, I know. Sometimes letting people be free means they will do something you don't like.Usually letting a person be free means they will do something that impinges on another person's freedom. This is where the government has to step in and establish rules, to say which freedoms are more important. The federal government has generally established that the exercise of your freedom of belief cannot impinge upon my freedom of physical well-being. The Idahoan government's specific law may contradict this in certain cases (but probably not this one, given that there are other pharmacies nearby), and it remains to be seen whether legally there is a case to overturn the specific Idaho law.

The point, though, is that it's not a question of the pharmacist being a meaniehead and we just don't like him. By exercising his rights he is infringing on another person's rights, and the best way by far to solve that is mutual respect for the arbitrary decrees of a governing body.
If a business wants to do something to offend customers, then they will lose customers. If all the businesses act the same way, an entrepreneur will see an opening in the market and make a new business to cater to these customers not wanted by the existing businesses.This episode is a pretty good counter-example to this philosophy: the woman in question apparently has some kind of uterine bleeding that requires medication to stop. Surely you will agree that it takes time to start a pharmacy - what if this woman would need to be hospitalized in that time? She appears to be from an urban part of Idaho (apparently they do exist), so she could pretty easily go to another pharmacy. What if this was the only pharmacy for 30 miles? 50? 100?

[Androidpk]

People live in Idaho?

[waywardgs]

People live in Idaho?

Depends on your definition of "people" and "live".

[prance1520]

Interesting case, but I think the free market argument is getting away from the real debate. The real question is, should a burden be placed on pharmacists to assist in medical care? There is a reason they need large amount of education, and I would imagine its not all learning how to count pills...

Would you feel differently about this case if the prescription was for Oxycontin and the person looked high? What I couldn't get out of the article was the motivation for refusal. Did the pharmacist deem the drug a health risk to the patient (they can refuse a drug if the person is also filling another prescription and the two drugs are not compatible)? Or was there an implied moral basis for refusal (the pharmacist doesn't believe in abortion)?

Not sure which way I lean on this yet.

[Drisco]

People live in Idaho?

Right?!

[ClydeR]

Would you feel differently about this case if the prescription was for Oxycontin and the person looked high?

Exactly! It's the same exact thing.

[crb]

Usually letting a person be free means they will do something that impinges on another person's freedom. This is where the government has to step in and establish rules, to say which freedoms are more important. The federal government has generally established that the exercise of your freedom of belief cannot impinge upon my freedom of physical well-being. The Idahoan government's specific law may contradict this in certain cases (but probably not this one, given that there are other pharmacies nearby), and it remains to be seen whether legally there is a case to overturn the specific Idaho law.

The point, though, is that it's not a question of the pharmacist being a meaniehead and we just don't like him. By exercising his rights he is infringing on another person's rights, and the best way by far to solve that is mutual respect for the arbitrary decrees of a governing body.This episode is a pretty good counter-example to this philosophy: the woman in question apparently has some kind of uterine bleeding that requires medication to stop. Surely you will agree that it takes time to start a pharmacy - what if this woman would need to be hospitalized in that time? She appears to be from an urban part of Idaho (apparently they do exist), so she could pretty easily go to another pharmacy. What if this was the only pharmacy for 30 miles? 50? 100?

Your opinion is that the shopper's right of service is more important than the pharmacist's right of refusal, or the business owner's. Your solution requires picking a winner and a loser, who is more important.

Remember, employers, business owners, and service providers are citizens deserving of rights too, and freedom.

The fact is, our bill of rights and other elements of our constitution, as originally written, detail how a citizen interacts with the government, not with other citizens or private businesses. You can stand on public land and speak freely all you want, you cannot walk into a McDonalds and do so. Your right of free speech does not extend to McDonald's property, only on government property.

Likewise, on the Internet, you're not free to post anything you want on the Officials, Simutronics will ban you and censor you if they want. You can hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit against them for infringing your rights to free speech, and you will be laughed at.

The fact is, there is nothing in the Constitution granting anyone a right to use someone else's private business facilities or services if the provider does not wish to grant access.

[waywardgs]

This is not, in my opinion, the same thing as a McDonald's. These folks are licensed by the state to do a job. While not government employees, there ability to perform this job is state regulated. If a cop decided he was only going to enforce the law for people of the right religion, or a firefighter only put out fires for black people, that would be an issue, no? Here we have what amounts to state sanctioned discrimination in the medical field. Simple as that.

[EasternBrand]

I'm not entirely sure at what stage this drug is used. It seems to me like the drug is used as a coagulant after an abortion has already been performed. Does anyone know if that's correct? It's not, of itself, an abortion-inducing drug. Apart from the legal issue then, doesn't it seem egregiously unethical for a pharmacist to withhold a potentially life-saving drug because of his "conscience?" Surely there is an ethical complexity if you're talking about an abortion-inducing pill, but that doesn't continue once the act has already been performed. Do pharmacists have an ethical code? I imagine they must. It seems to me that refusing to fill a prescription for this particular drug should violate that professional code, regardless of what the state law says.

[Gan]

The pharmacist clearly overstepped his bounds. Any questions should have been redirected back to the perscribing physician. This goes without saying that pharmacists do not prescribe nor do they critique or override a physician made diagnosis unless the meds are contraindicated to existing perscriptions that said patient is on.

Kudos for the nurse sticking to her guns. I see a nice settlement in her future from that drugstore chain.

[Latrinsorm]

Your opinion is that the shopper's right of service is more important than the pharmacist's right of refusal, or the business owner's. Your solution requires picking a winner and a loser, who is more important.My opinion is that the federal laws that currently exist support the shopper over the pharmacist. And yes, absolutely my solution requires picking a winner and a loser, because it's a solution. Without an objective arbiter that both parties will respect, people are going to resort to violence, and that is not good for society. This has been demonstrated ad nauseum.
Remember, employers, business owners, and service providers are citizens deserving of rights too, and freedom.

The fact is, our bill of rights and other elements of our constitution, as originally written, detail how a citizen interacts with the government, not with other citizens or private businesses. You can stand on public land and speak freely all you want, you cannot walk into a McDonalds and do so. Your right of free speech does not extend to McDonald's property, only on government property.

Likewise, on the Internet, you're not free to post anything you want on the Officials, Simutronics will ban you and censor you if they want. You can hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit against them for infringing your rights to free speech, and you will be laughed at.

The fact is, there is nothing in the Constitution granting anyone a right to use someone else's private business facilities or services if the provider does not wish to grant access.I was specific in saying that your freedoms can't impinge on my physical well-being, so I'm not sure why you think the freedom of speech is relevant. McDonald's cannot endanger my life on their own property, or otherwise cause me undue risk of personal harm.
Surely there is an ethical complexity if you're talking about an abortion-inducing pill, but that doesn't continue once the act has already been performed.You could say that by threatening the safety of people who have already had abortions, you are providing a deterrent to future abortion-seekers. It would probably be a bad move to actually say "threatening the safety", though.

[crb]

My opinion is that the federal laws that currently exist support the shopper over the pharmacist. And yes, absolutely my solution requires picking a winner and a loser, because it's a solution. Without an objective arbiter that both parties will respect, people are going to resort to violence, and that is not good for society. This has been demonstrated ad nauseum.I was specific in saying that your freedoms can't impinge on my physical well-being, so I'm not sure why you think the freedom of speech is relevant. McDonald's cannot endanger my life on their own property, or otherwise cause me undue risk of personal harm.You could say that by threatening the safety of people who have already had abortions, you are providing a deterrent to future abortion-seekers. It would probably be a bad move to actually say "threatening the safety", though.


Now you resort to hyperbole... the pharmacist held no gun to the person's head.

If a drug company invented a cure for cancer, but charged say $100,000 for it. Are they doing violence on poor people? What if a starving man went into McDonalds and they refused him service because he had no shoes? Are they causing his death?

And there is a solution if the government doesn't pick winners and losers. The pharmacist loses money, another pharmacy gains it. Therefor, naturally, through simple Darwinian forces, the better pharmacy succeeds while the other fails.

Unless, of course, as a show of support (assuming this was abortion related) prolife people patronize the first pharmacist, allowing him to succeed, if he is representing most accurately the values of his community. In which case you have a community voting on it directly by choosing which pharmacist to use, which is democracy.

I understand this may offend your central command and control liberal ideal, but that is why me and you are different.

If you're worried people will resort to violence, what actually tends to cause that sort of thing is when the government picks a winner and a loser. When people feel their rights are being taken advantage of to favor another person or group. That is also, by the way, how hate begins. You're crazy if you don't think prolifers will see any legal action here as a direct assault on their values. Many people do not like abortion, but what really pisses them off is when they're forced to aid the process.

Here is a question for you. Do healthcare workers have free choice? Or are they slaves to society? I know many have ethics, and would treat everyone because of it, but ethics or an oath are not the law, don't confuse them. Do not confuse choice with force.

Our military had conscientious objectors when we had the draft. Do you also think that program was a mistake. If we let people out of the armed forces at a time when their nation needed them to counter foreign threats, why would we not let healthcare workers have the same freedom?

In a free society the pharmacist would have the right to refuse service, the owner of the company he worked for would have the right to fire him for doing so, the customer would have the right to go to another pharmacy, or even protest the pharmacy publicly on public lands. The customer could even organize and take out radio or TV ads against this pharmacy. Other people could boycott the pharmacy in a show of support if the action really was that egregious.

[TheEschaton]

crb, you're a retard.

[ClydeR]

My opinion is that the federal laws that currently exist support the shopper over the pharmacist. And yes, absolutely my solution requires picking a winner and a loser, because it's a solution.

Everybody seems to forget that there are three affected parties -- the customer, the employee and the employer. Some of you seem to be treating the employee and employer as one person.

The employer, the owner of the pharmacy, wants to sell drugs that induce chemical abortions and wants to sell post-abortion treatments like the one in question. Otherwise, the employer would not stock those drugs. The employer is not actually on the premises and cannot sell products except through the actions of employees. Iowa law prohibits the employer from requiring the employee to sell products to which the employee objects. The employer cannot fire, demote or otherwise discriminate against employees who refuse to sell objectionable products.

This is an important exception to the general rule that we support, which is that the government should not place any restrictions on the employer's relationship with employees. This exception only applies to conscience laws, even though those laws restrict the employer's ability to conduct his business. The general rule of government noninterference applies to other restrictions, like special rights for homosexual and women employees.

[lightwellspam]

Everybody seems to forget that there are three affected parties -- the customer, the employee and the employer. Some of you seem to be treating the employee and employer as one person.

The employer, the owner of the pharmacy, wants to sell drugs that induce chemical abortions and wants to sell post-abortion treatments like the one in question. Otherwise, the employer would not stock those drugs. The employer is not actually on the premises and cannot sell products except through the actions of employees. Iowa law prohibits the employer from requiring the employee to sell products to which the employee objects. The employer cannot fire, demote or otherwise discriminate against employees who refuse to sell objectionable products.

This is an important exception to the general rule that we support, which is that the government should not place any restrictions on the employer's relationship with employees. This exception only applies to conscience laws, even though those laws restrict the employer's ability to conduct his business. The general rule of government noninterference applies to other restrictions, like special rights for homosexual and women employees.


Except the employee violated the rights of The customer by demanding their medical records. The law does not require a doctor to list a reason as to why a drug is prescribed. The law does however, protect a patient’s confidentiality. The pharmacist had no right to demand the customers medical records, and violated federal law the moment they used their authority as a licensed pharmacist to attempt to subvert confidential patient records from the customer, regardless of their intent to sell the drug or not.

[Ardwen]

The pharmacist isnt an effected party, he has no business preventing any medications from being given to any person, and has even less business asking why any medication was perscribed. All the pharmacist needs to know is a doctor or legally responsible nurse issued the te persription, at which point he should fill it, if he feels the need to interject his personal feelings into said transaction, he is in the wrong business, maybe he has a future at that whack job church in Kansas.

[~Rocktar~]

The pharmacist isnt an effected party, he has no business preventing any medications from being given to any person, and has even less business asking why any medication was perscribed. All the pharmacist needs to know is a doctor or legally responsible nurse issued the te persription, at which point he should fill it, if he feels the need to interject his personal feelings into said transaction, he is in the wrong business, maybe he has a future at that whack job church in Kansas.


Better be careful, Nachos, WB and others will call you a retard or something equally useful cause you misspelled/mistyped some words. After all, we all know that image is more important than substance or character.

[Ardwen]

Lucky I only misspelled 2, its a bitch typing on a blackberry

[prance1520]

This is not, in my opinion, the same thing as a McDonald's. These folks are licensed by the state to do a job. While not government employees, there ability to perform this job is state regulated. If a cop decided he was only going to enforce the law for people of the right religion, or a firefighter only put out fires for black people, that would be an issue, no? Here we have what amounts to state sanctioned discrimination in the medical field. Simple as that.

This isn't McDonald's, but this isn't the police either. Police are government employees, this pharmacist is not. This case is much closer to a contractor. As a contractor (who is licensed by the state to build buildings), if I deem a building to be unsafe, even if the architect said it was safe, I can choose to not build it. Just because I'm licensed by the state doesn't mean I HAVE to build it. The building owner can then go find a contractor who is willing to build it.

While I don't think the pharmacist did the right thing in refusing, I think majority here are taking it a step too far. If being a pharmacist was just counting pills and handing them across the counter, they'd have 17 year old HS dropouts doing it instead of $100k a year PhDs. There is some real intelligence and duty to that job around protecting someones health. They can be lawfully liable in medical cases and should do their job with extreme caution to help save lives. Until they come out and say this pharmacist refused because she's an anti-abortion nutcase, I'll be chillin the grey area.

[Latrinsorm]

Now you resort to hyperbole... the pharmacist held no gun to the person's head.If you are bleeding, and I refuse you the tools needed to stop that bleeding, I am endangering your physical well-being. We're not talking about a uterine paper cut here.
If a drug company invented a cure for cancer, but charged say $100,000 for it. Are they doing violence on poor people? What if a starving man went into McDonalds and they refused him service because he had no shoes? Are they causing his death?If a man who was literally starving died in that situation, McDonald's absolutely contributed to his death. Please note how I said contributed, in the same way that I said "endanger", "risk", and "threaten" before. We don't have to worry about the first situation, because President Obama has solved health care, but for completeness' sake: I would say if the drug company illegally refused to allow generic versions of the drug, they would certainly have contributed to the deaths of poor people. I probably wouldn't say "doing violence on".
And there is a solution if the government doesn't pick winners and losers. The pharmacist loses money, another pharmacy gains it. Therefor, naturally, through simple Darwinian forces, the better pharmacy succeeds while the other fails.

Unless, of course, as a show of support (assuming this was abortion related) prolife people patronize the first pharmacist, allowing him to succeed, if he is representing most accurately the values of his community. In which case you have a community voting on it directly by choosing which pharmacist to use, which is democracy.

I understand this may offend your central command and control liberal ideal, but that is why me and you are different.Our government is not subject to the tyranny of the majority or the related tyranny of the ignorant market. This is one thing the founders got right. Another thing they got right (eventually) was federal dominance of state and local governments. If you have 90% of a town that thinks racial bias is awesome, that town is still not allowed to institute Jim Crow laws. If you have 90% of a state that thinks women shouldn't vote, that state is still not allowed to infringe upon women's suffrage.
If you're worried people will resort to violence, what actually tends to cause that sort of thing is when the government picks a winner and a loser. When people feel their rights are being taken advantage of to favor another person or group. That is also, by the way, how hate begins. You're crazy if you don't think prolifers will see any legal action here as a direct assault on their values. Many people do not like abortion, but what really pisses them off is when they're forced to aid the process. The drugs in question aren't aiding abortion, they're keeping people alive. Pro-lifers are not (necessarily) anti-women, and for the tiny minority that are anti-women-being-alive that view is impermissible. This is also how hate ends, by the way. Why do you think racism has dropped off so dramatically since the 60s?
Here is a question for you. Do healthcare workers have free choice? Or are they slaves to society? I know many have ethics, and would treat everyone because of it, but ethics or an oath are not the law, don't confuse them. Do not confuse choice with force.

Our military had conscientious objectors when we had the draft. Do you also think that program was a mistake. If we let people out of the armed forces at a time when their nation needed them to counter foreign threats, why would we not let healthcare workers have the same freedom?

In a free society the pharmacist would have the right to refuse service, the owner of the company he worked for would have the right to fire him for doing so, the customer would have the right to go to another pharmacy, or even protest the pharmacy publicly on public lands. The customer could even organize and take out radio or TV ads against this pharmacy. Other people could boycott the pharmacy in a show of support if the action really was that egregious.Nobody in America has free choice the way you seem to mean it, because everyone else has freedoms too. This does not mean that anyone is a slave, it means that everyone has to behave like a grown up or (if caught) be punished. In this free society, the government takes the freedom to live without being imperiled very seriously, more seriously than pretty much any other right. It turns out that it's really easy to not threaten other peoples' lives and safety, though, so most Americans have no trouble making free choices day in and day out.

[Jarvan]

We don't have to worry about the first situation, because President Obama has solved health care, but for completeness' sake: I would say if the drug company illegally refused to allow generic versions of the drug, they would certainly have contributed to the deaths of poor people. I probably wouldn't say "doing violence on".


LOL

Sorry, but that's the funniest thing I have heard in 2011 so far.

Obama hasn't solved healthcare, even if the bill he did not write( has he actually written anything), stays as is, it doesn't solve anything.

And on another note, as for the drug companies, if they had a cure for cancer, they could certainly sell it for 100k a dose, and either the government would pay the bill for it, or people would do without it. Or are you saying with the bill, the government gets to dictate what things are sold for now as well?

If that were the case, said company just would not seek FDA approval, and sell in other countries, and the rich ( including the government itself ) would go there to get it.

[crb]

If you are bleeding, and I refuse you the tools needed to stop that bleeding, I am endangering your physical well-being.


So are you saying the pharmacist violated a supposed samaritan law where the woman was about to die and he stood by and did nothing, or is this more hyperbole? Because, honestly, emergent people generally go to the hospital, and hospitals generally do not sent patients out to Walgreens to get a prescription filled. Hospitals have drugs right there in the building. Someone was thinking ahead see...


This is one thing the founders got right. Another thing they got right (eventually) was federal dominance of state and local governments. If you have 90% of a town that thinks racial bias is awesome, that town is still not allowed to institute Jim Crow laws. If you have 90% of a state that thinks women shouldn't vote, that state is still not allowed to infringe upon women's suffrage.


You're either through ignorance or just poor debate skills using a straw man argument here. No one is talking about infringing someone's public rights guaranteed by the Constitution. We're talking about a private citizen having the right to refuse service to another private citizen on an issue of conscience. The Constitution, and all the protections it provides, are protections for the individual when dealing with the State, not for an individual when dealing with another individual on private property.



The drugs in question aren't aiding abortion, they're keeping people alive. Pro-lifers are not (necessarily) anti-women, and for the tiny minority that are anti-women-being-alive that view is impermissible. This is also how hate ends, by the way.

It doesn't matter if the drug aids abortion. What matters is if a private citizen has the right to choice in matters of conscience when doing their job, as judged by them, not by you. You are not the arbiter of universal conscience.

What is more, as soon as we decide the arbiter is not the individual, this freedom is no freedom at all. Even if you normally got your way, it would be an illusion of free choice.

This is one of those "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Sort of things. The freedom to not have to do something that makes you uncomfortable, or if you're religious makes you a sinner in your eyes, that is as base a freedom as you will find, inherent in the founding of our nation.



Why do you think racism has dropped off so dramatically since the 60s? It has dropped? Someone tell Al Sharpton, seriously though, it dropped because of Bill Cosby and Will Smith and a myriad of other things that resulted in people of different races being more comfortable around each other. It did not drop because some politician waved a magic wand.



Nobody in America has free choice the way you seem to mean it, because everyone else has freedoms too. This does not mean that anyone is a slave, it means that everyone has to behave like a grown up or (if caught) be punished.

Actually they do, specifically they're called "conscience laws" as in the title of this thread. ClydeR even knows they exist, you apparently do not.

Read and be educated...


The Weldon Amendment. First adopted in 2004, the Weldon Amendment (named after former Representative Dave Weldon [R-FL]) has been included in each subsequent Health and Human Services (HHS) appropriations act.[1] The law's requirements apply to federal agencies and programs as well as state and local governments receiving federal funds from HHS.
The Weldon Amendment prohibits discrimination against health care providers who do not provide, pay for, provide coverage for (in the case of a health plan), or refer for, abortions. It protects a broad number of entities including physicians and other health care professionals, hospitals, provider-sponsored organizations, HMOs, and health insurance plans that do not cover abortion. It also contains important catch-all language including in its protections "any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan."

Public Health Service Act Section 245. Signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, Section 245 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) places restrictions on the federal government as well as state and local governments receiving federal financial assistance.[2]
PHSA Section 245 prohibits discrimination against both individuals and institutions (including doctors, hospitals, and postgraduate training programs) that refuse to undergo training in, require or provide training in, provide referrals for, or perform, abortions.[3] It also prohibits discrimination against individuals and institutions that refuse to "make arrangements for" any of these activities.[4] Thus, PHSA Section 245 would on its face prohibit discrimination against a doctor who refused even to "make arrangements for" such activities as abortion referrals.

The Church Amendments. Named after former Senator Frank Church (D-ID), the Church Amendments were enacted at various times in the 1970s in part to respond to the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade and to address concerns that doctors and faith-based hospitals would be forced to perform abortions or sterilizations as a condition of receiving federal funds.[5]
The Church Amendments:

Prohibit courts and other public officials from requiring individuals or institutions receiving grants under certain federal programs to perform or assist in abortions or sterilizations or to provide facilities or personnel for the same.[6]
Forbid discrimination against physicians or other health care personnel because of their religious or moral objections to performing abortions or sterilizations.[7] Areas of prohibited discrimination include employment, promotion, termination, and extension of staff privileges.[8]
Extend protection to individuals, including researchers and laboratory staff participating in HHS-funded behavioral or biomedical research (including research funded by the National Institutes of Health).[9] Under this provision, no individual can be discriminated against on the basis that (1) the individual performed or assisted in any lawful research activity or (2) the individual refused to perform or assist in any research activity because it would be contrary to his or her religious beliefs or moral convictions. This means, for example, that researchers who object to participating in federally funded embryo-destroying research cannot be fired or otherwise discriminated against on the basis of their beliefs.
Bar any program funded by HHS from requiring any individual to perform or assist in "any part" of a "health service program or research activity" if such participation would be contrary to the individual's religious beliefs or moral convictions. On its face, this provision covers a broad array of activities, including contraception programs and research activities administered by HHS.


So we have these laws in America, society has decided that they are a good thing, because, they are.

This issue is really no different than prayer in schools, or other such church and state issues. Forcing students to pray is forcing religion on students. Most people would say that is wrong. This is forcing a lack of religion on the pharmacist, the flip side of the same coin. It is as wrong to expect him to abandone his beliefs and do something he believes will tarnish his immortal soul, as it is to expect an atheist student to pray in a circle with his classmates.

[waywardgs]

There are loads of unconstitutional laws. It takes time to weed them out. Sadly, in the meantime, we have to deal with them.

[crb]

A law respecting freedom of religion is unlikely to be striken down on constitutional grounds.

Likewise, you'll find nothing in the constitution about your right of being served by a private establishment. So there wouldn't even be grounds for such an appeal.

If you wanted to get rid of such laws you'd need a constitutional ammendment invalidating in part the first ammendment. Not only would it be a complete abuse of the purpose of the constitution ala prohibition (regulating private behavior, and not government limits) it also would have about a snowball's chance in hell of ever reaching fruition.

[Gan]

Remember, employers, business owners, and service providers are citizens deserving of rights too, and freedom.

Remember certain professions have cannons of ethics that inhibit these freedoms you are suggesting.

Do police officers have the freedom of who they render aid to and those they do not? (I'm not talking about discretionary authority for enforcement either.)

Do firemen have the freedom to choose which housefire they extinguish?

Do physicians have the freedom to choose whom they render aid to in an emergent situation (see federal emtala laws in addition to the hipp. oath.)

Pharmacists are bound by similar cannons of ethics and laws.

In conclusion I'll leave you with this:



PHARMACIST CODE OF ETHICS
Pharmacists are health professionals who assist individuals inmaking the best use of medications. This Code, prepared and supported by pharmacists, is intended to state publicly theprinciples that form the fundamental basis of the roles and responsibilities of pharmacists. These principles, based on moralobligations and virtues, are established to guide pharmacists in relationships with patients, health professionals, and society.

I. A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.
Considering the patient-pharmacist relationship as a covenant means that a pharmacist has moral obligations in response to thegift of trust received from society. In return for this gift, a pharmacist promises to help individuals achieve optimum benefitfrom their medications, to be committed to their welfare, and to maintain their trust.

II. A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in acaring, compassionate, and confidential manner.
A pharmacist places concern for the well-being of the patient atthe center of professional practice. In doing so, a pharmacist considers needs stated by the patient as well as those defined byhealth science. A pharmacist is dedicated to protecting the dignity of the patient. With a caring attitude and a compassionate spirit,a pharmacist focuses on serving the patient in a private and confidential manner.

III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity ofeach patient.
A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination andrecognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacistcommunicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differencesamong patients.

IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity inprofessional relationships.
A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act withconviction of conscience. A pharmacist avoids discriminatorypractices, behavior or work conditions that impair professionaljudgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the bestinterests of patients.

V. A pharmacist maintains professionalcompetence.
A pharmacist has a duty to maintain knowledge and abilities asnew medications, devices, and technologies become available and ashealth information advances.

VI. A pharmacist respects the values and abilities ofcolleagues and other health professionals.
When appropriate, a pharmacist asks for the consultation ofcolleagues or other health professionals or refers the patient. Apharmacist acknowledges that colleagues and other healthprofessionals may differ in the beliefs and values they apply tothe care of the patient.

VII. A pharmacist serves individual, community, andsocietal needs.
The primary obligation of a pharmacist is to individualpatients. However, the obligations of a pharmacist may at timesextend beyond the individual to the community and society. In thesesituations, the pharmacist recognizes the responsibilities thataccompany these obligations and acts accordingly.

VIII. A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution ofhealth resources.
When health resources are allocated, a pharmacist is fair and equitable, balancing the needs of patients and society.

*adopted by the membership of the American Pharmacists Association October 27, 1994.

Oath of a Pharmacist
At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the professionof pharmacy.

I will consider the welfare of humanityand relief of human suffering my primary concerns.

I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve.

I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy. I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical and legal conduct.

I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of pharmacy that improves patient care.

I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.

http://www.uspharmd.com/pharmacist/pharmacist_oath_and_code_of_ethics/

[crb]

Are you dense? Seriously, I've already gone over this.

1. A police officer is a government employee.

2. A Firefighter is a government employee.

3. A "code of ethics" or an oath is not a law, or divorce would be a crime.

This really isn't that complex a concept people.

[lightwellspam]

Are you dense? Seriously, I've already gone over this.

1. A police officer is a government employee.

2. A Firefighter is a government employee.

3. A "code of ethics" or an oath is not a law, or divorce would be a crime.

This really isn't that complex a concept people.

Are you dense also?

There IS A FEDERAL LAW that prevents a pharmacist, or anyone else, from asking your doctor for YOUR medical history. Attempting to subvert a medical professional to ILLEGALLY obtain your medical history when you have not authorized it is a federal crime. So, since you defer to the law on the matter, you would support that the pharmacist be liable in a criminal court for this violation right? Right?

I’d be perfectly happy in this case if the pharmacist kept his job, but went to jail for 18 months? Good solution crb?

[prance1520]

That code of ethics is interesting, but I don't see any part of that in which there is true evidence the pharmacist violated any of those.

Unless I'm missing something, until someone confirms that refusal of service was gender/ethically/politically motivated, the pharmacist is still within the code. It clearly states the pharmacist should consult other health care professionals, it doesn't say you have to obey other health care professionals.

[prance1520]

Attempting to subvert a medical professional to ILLEGALLY obtain your medical history when you have not authorized it is a federal crime.

Honest question, is this really true? I know its a federal crime to divulge this information if you have it, but is it really a federal crime to ask for it? If I go in and ask for your medical history, they'll arrest me on the spot?

[Tgo01]

Are you dense also?

There IS A FEDERAL LAW that prevents a pharmacist, or anyone else, from asking your doctor for YOUR medical history. Attempting to subvert a medical professional to ILLEGALLY obtain your medical history when you have not authorized it is a federal crime. So, since you defer to the law on the matter, you would support that the pharmacist be liable in a criminal court for this violation right? Right?

I’d be perfectly happy in this case if the pharmacist kept his job, but went to jail for 18 months? Good solution crb?

Not that I'm agreeing with crb on this issue but I don't think it's against the law to ask about someones medical history, I think it's against the law to try to pretend to be someone else to gain access to their medical history (like you're pretending to be the wife/husband or something) and it's against the law for the doctor/nurse/whatever to disclose someones medical history without their permission. Think about it for a minute, what if your friend comes around asking about you who is just genuinely concerned about your well being, do we arrest him and lock him up for 18 months for being worried?

Granted the pharmacist should have known better but I think the issue here is the she assumed the medication was because the patient just had an abortion and refused to fill the prescription based on that assumption.

[Latrinsorm]

So are you saying the pharmacist violated a supposed samaritan law where the woman was about to die and he stood by and did nothing, or is this more hyperbole? Because, honestly, emergent people generally go to the hospital, and hospitals generally do not sent patients out to Walgreens to get a prescription filled. Hospitals have drugs right there in the building. Someone was thinking ahead see...I say "endanger physical well-being", but you need me to say "endanger life", so that's what you read. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which of us is being hyperbolic.
You're either through ignorance or just poor debate skills using a straw man argument here. No one is talking about infringing someone's public rights guaranteed by the Constitution. We're talking about a private citizen having the right to refuse service to another private citizen on an issue of conscience. The Constitution, and all the protections it provides, are protections for the individual when dealing with the State, not for an individual when dealing with another individual on private property.The Constitution is not the only source of federally protected rights we have (all praise be to James Madison). You may not like that that is the case, but it is the case nonetheless.
It doesn't matter if the drug aids abortion. What matters is if a private citizen has the right to choice in matters of conscience when doing their job, as judged by them, not by you. You are not the arbiter of universal conscience.

What is more, as soon as we decide the arbiter is not the individual, this freedom is no freedom at all. Even if you normally got your way, it would be an illusion of free choice.

This is one of those "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Sort of things. The freedom to not have to do something that makes you uncomfortable, or if you're religious makes you a sinner in your eyes, that is as base a freedom as you will find, inherent in the founding of our nation.It is an important and inherent freedom, but it is not as base a freedom as I have found in America, and this is the crucial point. The first and most important freedom is life, and by extension physical well-being. The freedom to speech and freedom to life cannot be literally equal in importance, because the exercise of the first can endanger the exercise of the second. One has to take precedence, or the government is useless. Hence, Voltaire was wrong (or more probably taken out of context). If what you say endangers someone else, I won't even defend to the mild inconvenience your right to say it - even if I agree with what you are saying.
Actually they do, specifically they're called "conscience laws" as in the title of this thread. ClydeR even knows they exist, you apparently do not.America has frequently enacted laws that go against its basic philosophy, because of course legislation is literally a whimsical proposition. Any politician can propose any law they feel like, and it can pass. The point is that the fundamental philosophy eventually prevails. This is really the same point you are making, you just feel that there's a different fundamental philosophy.

[lightwellspam]

Honest question, is this really true? I know its a federal crime to divulge this information if you have it, but is it really a federal crime to ask for it? If I go in and ask for your medical history, they'll arrest me on the spot?

Asking for it is not a crime unless you are either a) attempting to subvert the information via withholding from services or rightful pass or b) abusing a position of authority in order to obtain it.

If you simply walk up to a doctor/medical staff and ask for someone’s medical history, it would make you stupid, but not a criminal.

Example 1:
If you owned a gun shop, and someone had a valid permit to purchase a firearm, but you “sensed” that the person might be buying it to do something bad, you DO have the right to not sell the firearm to them. You do NOT have the right to consult their psychiatrist, demand that you need their file for your own evaluation to determine if you could sell that person a gun. That would be a federal crime. You also do NOT have the right to demand that the customer sign off on giving you their psychiatric history file for your review in order to receive a publicly offered service. This would be a civil matter but also criminal.

Example 2:
You’re a pharmacist. Person walks into your pharmacy with a prescription from a licensed physician. You have the right to tell them that you refuse to dispense x drug. They have the right to complain to your manager that you are refusing them service on a valid prescription. They would also have the right to bring up a civil ordinance to remove the pharmacy’s right to be called a pharmacy, since by exercising their right to refuse service based on personal beliefs, they would fail to meet the regulations in most states of being a publicly available full service drug dispensary. It would not remove their license to sell drugs, but they would have to call themselves something other than a pharmacy. The reason that this IS significant, is because in places that are mandated by Sunday laws, or other state or county enforced closures, a pharmacy DOES have the right to remain open without a fine.

Now, the pharmacist DOES have the right to refuse service. But it must be done up front. What the pharmacist does NOT have the right to do:
1) Tell the customer that they must furnish their medical records over to him/her before the drug can be dispensed. A pharmacist is not a practicing physician, and is not licensed to diagnose OR treat illnesses. It’d be like the guy pumping your gas asking to see your oil change records before pumping the gas in terms of sheer stupidity of the request.
2) And here’s the doozy. If they abuse their position of authority to demand to see the medical records of a customer against their will, they are liable in the same way that a doctor would be for furnishing them illegally. Principle called subversion.

[crb]

It is an important and inherent freedom, but it is not as base a freedom as I have found in America, and this is the crucial point. The first and most important freedom is life, and by extension physical well-being. The freedom to speech and freedom to life cannot be literally equal in importance, because the exercise of the first can endanger the exercise of the second. One has to take precedence, or the government is useless.

It is not the job of one private citizen to protect the life of another private citizen.

You continually confuse acts of violence or malice with inaction.

Homeless people die on the street every day, are we all guilty through inaction because we refuse to subside their lives entirely with government handouts?

You must be pretty hardcore pro choice (or, just dumb, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt since our argument thus far has been pretty good), to bend your views so hard this way to thwart a perceived attack on abortion.

Look, take Freedom of Religion.

If your religion includes sacrificing a virgin every full moon, is this okay? No, because you are murdering a virgin once a month.

If your religion states that life begins at conception, and that murder is a sin, and aiding in the practice of abortion is thus murder, is it okay for you to refuse to do so? Yes.

You seem to be arguing they are one and the same. They're so obviously not. If the pharmacist refused service then dragged the woman to a back room and chained her to the wall, then they would be the same thing.

You may claim "He wasn't performing an abortion, its okay." But as I said, you are not the arbiter here. You are not his god, or his priest, you are not in possession of his immortal soul. All that matters is what he believes for himself, we have that freedom in this country.

[crb]

Are you dense also?

There IS A FEDERAL LAW that prevents a pharmacist, or anyone else, from asking your doctor for YOUR medical history. Attempting to subvert a medical professional to ILLEGALLY obtain your medical history when you have not authorized it is a federal crime. So, since you defer to the law on the matter, you would support that the pharmacist be liable in a criminal court for this violation right? Right?

I’d be perfectly happy in this case if the pharmacist kept his job, but went to jail for 18 months? Good solution crb?

You really need to link up where it is illegal to ask for someone's healthcare records.

It is illegal to provide typically without permission, but not to ask for.

Furthermore, your view of a pharmacist is of a dumb bean counter, there are very legitimate reasons why he may want to talk over a prescription with a doctor, maybe he can't read the handwriting if nothing else. Pharmacies call doctors frequently. I know this, I sleep with a doctor who has gotten calls.

Secondly, I think our definition of position of authority is different. A person with a position of authority over another person is a boss over an employee or a teacher over a student, or a police officer over a citizen. It is not a service provider over a customer. You see this in myriad laws.

Medical privacy laws are different in each state so I won't claim to know all of them, but please, educate me, link me to a law stating it is illegal to ask, and link me to a law (or case precedent) explicitly stating a service provider in a retail store is in a position of authority over a customer. If you can show me proof of this I'll readily admit that the pharmacist might have broken a privacy law.

The other half of this thread, over his right to refuse, of course I stand by my position.

[Gan]

Are you dense? Seriously, I've already gone over this.

1. A police officer is a government employee.

2. A Firefighter is a government employee.

3. A "code of ethics" or an oath is not a law, or divorce would be a crime.

This really isn't that complex a concept people.

Funny how you did not include a physician in that mix - because it did not fit your rebuttal. ;)

All of which previously mentioned take an professional oath.

Its not a matter of density (way to slide into ad hominem in attempt to cover your weak argument) as it is a matter of what they are allowed to do legally and professionally. It's a matter of a position of public trust. A pharmacist fit's within those categories even if they are not employed by the government (same as a physician.)

[Latrinsorm]

It is not the job of one private citizen to protect the life of another private citizen.

You continually confuse acts of violence or malice with inaction.

Homeless people die on the street every day, are we all guilty through inaction because we refuse to subside their lives entirely with government handouts?I take no position on the mental state of the pharmacist, but I wouldn't be surprised if he or she primarily felt benevolence. In any event, this isn't a case of inaction. The pharmacist took action by denying the prescription. Inaction would be standing aside while another pharmacist filled the prescription. That would be permissible because the pharmacist would not be denying the superior right. (It would also be kind of comical, but that's not important right now.)

Incidentally, if this was 1910 those parts of our government and society that were aware of the situation, capable of changing it, and did nothing would absolutely be to blame for the conditions the poor lived in. Today we have a baseline level of welfare available for everyone, so the situation is different. I think a more timely way of phrasing the question would be the way our society handles the mentally ill.
You must be pretty hardcore pro choice (or, just dumb, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt since our argument thus far has been pretty good), to bend your views so hard this way to thwart a perceived attack on abortion.I am neither pro-choice nor pro-life.
Look, take Freedom of Religion.

If your religion includes sacrificing a virgin every full moon, is this okay? No, because you are murdering a virgin once a month.

If your religion states that life begins at conception, and that murder is a sin, and aiding in the practice of abortion is thus murder, is it okay for you to refuse to do so? Yes.

You seem to be arguing they are one and the same. They're so obviously not. If the pharmacist refused service then dragged the woman to a back room and chained her to the wall, then they would be the same thing.

You may claim "He wasn't performing an abortion, its okay." But as I said, you are not the arbiter here. You are not his god, or his priest, you are not in possession of his immortal soul. All that matters is what he believes for himself, we have that freedom in this country.Of course, killing someone is worse than just harming them, and harming them a lot is worse than just harming them just a little. I haven't called the pharmacist a murderer, but I don't see how it's arguable that he or she had a reasonable expectation of the patient coming to further physical harm because of their decision. With that in mind, I don't see why we shouldn't apply the same reasoning we apply to freedom of speech for this case and the freedom of religion.

[Tgo01]

You are not his god, or his priest, you are not in possession of his immortal soul. All that matters is what he believes for himself, we have that freedom in this country.

Granted I'm not her god either but I have a hard time believing God would want her to possibly endanger another persons life based on an assumption that the medication was needed for post abortion care. But I guess that's getting into a whole religious debate and this debate is about law.

[crb]

Funny how you did not include a physician in that mix - because it did not fit your rebuttal. ;)

All of which previously mentioned take an professional oath.

Its not a matter of density (way to slide into ad hominem in attempt to cover your weak argument) as it is a matter of what they are allowed to do legally and professionally. It's a matter of a position of public trust. A pharmacist fit's within those categories even if they are not employed by the government (same as a physician.)

I had already specifically rebutted that point.

Healthcare workers (doctors, nurses, emts, paramedics, etc) are required to provide aid in emergent situations until relieved by someone of equal or greater skill, generally. I of course know this having had travel plans delayed by such a situation. They are also protected from liability in such circumstances because of samaritan laws.

These laws do not apply in nonemergency situations, nor do they force anyone to perform an act against their conscience or religion. If you have an example of someone refusing on such grounds, and being prosecuted, by all means, post it. I for one have already posted the laws stating healthcare workers are free to object to provide care in such matters.

[crb]

I take no position on the mental state of the pharmacist, but I wouldn't be surprised if he or she primarily felt benevolence. In any event, this isn't a case of inaction. The pharmacist took action by denying the prescription. Inaction would be standing aside while another pharmacist filled the prescription. That would be permissible because the pharmacist would not be denying the superior right. (It would also be kind of comical, but that's not important right now.).

Oh for fuck sake.

The pharmacist did not prevent the woman from seeking the drug from another pharmacist. He did not forcibly restrain her in any way. He was also probably the only one on duty at that location, they usually don't double up the white coats.



In any event, this isn't a case of inaction. The pharmacist took action by denying the prescription.

Look lady, not doing something is the definition of inaction.

"He acted by not acting." Is this some newspeak? Do you work in the Ministry of Truth?

I can't argue against people who try to redefine words in the English language.

[Gan]

I had already specifically rebutted that point.

Healthcare workers (doctors, nurses, emts, paramedics, etc) are required to provide aid in emergent situations until relieved by someone of equal or greater skill, generally. I of course know this having had travel plans delayed by such a situation. They are also protected from liability in such circumstances because of samaritan laws.

These laws do not apply in nonemergency situations, nor do they force anyone to perform an act against their conscience or religion. If you have an example of someone refusing on such grounds, and being prosecuted, by all means, post it. I for one have already posted the laws stating healthcare workers are free to object to provide care in such matters.

If we were simply discussing laws then you would be mostly correct. However, we also have a professional oath that all pharmacists must take prior to entering into practice. Don't be surprised when not only is this pharmacist pulled in for review by the APA and also by the state board of pharmacists. Also don't be surprised if his license runs the risk of being revoked. And finally, don't be surprised if the pharmacist (and pharmacy) is held liable for negligence in a civil court and sued for treble damanges as such.

I would suggest that being held criminally liable should be the least of this pharmacist's worries at this point.

[Latrinsorm]

Oh for fuck sake.

The pharmacist did not prevent the woman from seeking the drug from another pharmacist. He did not forcibly restrain her in any way. He was also probably the only one on duty at that location, they usually don't double up the white coats.I did not say that they did. If you'll recall, I was the first (and as yet only) person in this thread to actually research and see how far away another pharmacy actually is for this specific situation - this is not the point. The point is that the pharmacist must have reason to believe that the patient can imminently get the drug elsewhere to not be reasonably sure that they are causing the patient harm, and the only reason to believe that would be to direct the patient to a pharmacy where the pharmacist is reasonably sure they can get their prescription filled. That would have been an acceptable response to this situation, given how close another pharmacy is.
Look lady, not doing something is the definition of inaction.

"He acted by not acting." Is this some newspeak? Do you work in the Ministry of Truth?

I can't argue against people who try to redefine words in the English language.Saying no is an act just as much as saying yes is, even though they carry opposite meanings. Not saying yes is not the same thing as saying no, and in this case the pharmacist said no.

[EasternBrand]

Saying no is an act just as much as saying yes is, even though they carry opposite meanings. Not saying yes is not the same thing as saying no, and in this case the pharmacist said no.

I was with you for a while, but you're stretching this point too much and starting to make crb look reasonable by comparison. It's not the vocalization of intent that represents the act in question, it's the dispensation of drugs. Not dispensing the drugs is a pretty clear case of inaction. You can debate the moral, ethical, or legal responsibility of the pharmacist to act--and, by the way, I think there is a colorable argument that the pharmacist was under a duty to act and misapplied the law--but it's pretty evident that he did not act. Staking your case on the pharmacist's vocalization misplaces the emphasis on form rather than function and diverts attention from what should be your main argument.

[Latrinsorm]

I was with you for a while, but you're stretching this point too much and starting to make crb look reasonable by comparison. It's not the vocalization of intent that represents the act in question, it's the dispensation of drugs. Not dispensing the drugs is a pretty clear case of inaction. You can debate the moral, ethical, or legal responsibility of the pharmacist to act--and, by the way, I think there is a colorable argument that the pharmacist was under a duty to act and misapplied the law--but it's pretty evident that he did not act. Staking your case on the pharmacist's vocalization misplaces the emphasis on form rather than function and diverts attention from what should be your main argument.Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by inaction, then. The pharmacist made a choice that had ramifications for the external world. If I may draw an analogy, suppose four men go by a house. The first sets it on fire. The second sees smoke and keeps walking. The third doesn't see smoke and keeps walking. The fourth sees smoke and calls the fire department. To me, only the third man is inactive as far as the house on fire is concerned, and the pharmacist is most analogous to the second man.

I guess the way I see it, if you were to ask the pharmacist what he did that day and he said "nothing", I would say that is not a fully honest response.

[Latrinsorm]

And yes, to the point of the main argument. I think the positions have been well-established on that front. crb simply disagrees which rights are most fundamental, and the degree to which the federal government ought to intervene to secure those rights. I still think he's wrong, but I don't feel that's a productive discussion to continue.

[4a6c1]

Hmm. I'm glad the pharmacist stood up for what she believed in. Even if her correct moral determinations were only inspired by popular faith-based myth.

[Firestorm Killa]

Bullshit in this case. You're a pharmacist. Don't be a pharmacist if you don't want to dispense prescription drugs.

Also: The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Your argument is invalid. This had nothing to do with race, color, religion, or national origin. This was something that had to do with Conscience, and Idaho has a Conscience law well within the United State's constitution, which makes what the pharmacist did perfectly legal.

[TheEschaton]

You cannot deny prescription medicines because of your belief. A doctor (or in this case, an NP) has deemed it medically necessary.

Your right to a "good conscience" doesn't supercede another's right to health. Now, if the prescription was for prescription-strength acne medicine, and you were somehow opposed to acne-free faces, you could probably invoke your (retarded) good conscience law. It's hard to say that for an anti-bleeding prescription, whose absence could have a serious negative consequence on the patient's care.


-TheE-

[Firestorm Killa]

You cannot deny prescription medicines because of your belief. A doctor (or in this case, an NP) has deemed it medically necessary.

Your right to a "good conscience" doesn't supercede another's right to health. Now, if the prescription was for prescription-strength acne medicine, and you were somehow opposed to acne-free faces, you could probably invoke your (retarded) good conscience law. It's hard to say that for an anti-bleeding prescription, whose absence could have a serious negative consequence on the patient's care.


-TheE-

If she wanted good health she should not have got that abortion. Abortions will be illegal soon anyways thanks to a loop hole in Roe v Wade. All republicans need to do is define when life begins and they plan to define it at conception.

[4a6c1]

All republicans need to do is define when life begins and they plan to define it at conception.

This kind of logic is ridiculous. It seems much more likely that advocates will look to the viability of children born at or around 22 weeks gestation to substantiate the pro-life argument. The fact that children are viable outside the womb at this point in development argues the point against murder better than any hole with loops. BUT THANKS FOR PLAYING.

[Gan]

If she wanted good health she should not have got that abortion. Abortions will be illegal soon anyways thanks to a loop hole in Roe v Wade. All republicans need to do is define when life begins and they plan to define it at conception.

They could not get it done with majorities in the house and senate along with W as president. What makes you think they will get it done anytime soon?

[waywardgs]

If she wanted good health she should not have got that abortion. Abortions will be illegal soon anyways thanks to a loop hole in Roe v Wade. All republicans need to do is define when life begins and they plan to define it at conception.

Serious question- how old are you? I'm legitimately curious.

[~Rocktar~]

You cannot deny prescription medicines because of your belief. A doctor (or in this case, an NP) has deemed it medically necessary.

Your right to a "good conscience" doesn't supercede another's right to health. Now, if the prescription was for prescription-strength acne medicine, and you were somehow opposed to acne-free faces, you could probably invoke your (retarded) good conscience law. It's hard to say that for an anti-bleeding prescription, whose absence could have a serious negative consequence on the patient's care.


-TheE-

If that were the only reasonable avenue for obtaining the medication, I might agree with you. Since it is clearly not, the point is invalid and while not the best business move, it is both legal and ethical. If the medication were indeed absolutely critical, she would not have left medical care without it in her possession.

[FNLN]

If she wanted good health she should not have got that abortion.

Who said she had an abortion? The drug she had a prescription for has, and I quote, "multiple purposes in postpartum care." Nobody except her doctor and her know what she required the drug for, and that's the way it should be. The Pharmacist doesn't need to know, and the Physician was right in refusing to divulge that information.

Do you want the Doctor telling the Pharmacist that you require the anti-bleeding medication because a gerbil tore the shit out of your ass?