RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill

RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Goddess20 -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/9/2007 2:18:24 PM)
How is this a good thing????????? Its just another thing that stupid people haven't looked in to and don't understand but have some 'moral' objection to without having the knowledge to know what they are objecting too! People to tend to think (wrongly) its killing a baby, its an abortion in a pill, actually wrong! Like it says in the link, if you are already pregnant it doent work. People need to start thinking that instead of basically forcing people into having babies they dont want or forcing them to have an abortion maybe they should give people the easy option. I believe it should be restricted to stop people using the MAP instead of a condom but to say 'I refuse' is out of order.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/9/2007 2:43:27 PM)
The point is, Goddess20, that none of this should be legislated at all. Either it is sold or it is not. It is a choice of the individual retailer or chain. Employees of that retailer or chain then should follow the company policy. If they choose to have more than one pharmacist on staff at each shift and allow the dissenter the personal freedom of not filling that particular perscription, then fine. Running to court to force an issue into line with a personal comfort level does not provide freedom of choice. It erodes freedom of choice. Now the retailer does not have any recourse against an employee who states, mistakenly in your opinion , or not, that *they do not have to do their job because a court said so.*

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/9/2007 5:22:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold The point is, Goddess20, that none of this should be legislated at all. Either it is sold or it is not. It is a choice of the individual retailer or chain. Employees of that retailer or chain then should follow the company policy. If they choose to have more than one pharmacist on staff at each shift and allow the dissenter the personal freedom of not filling that particular perscription, then fine. Running to court to force an issue into line with a personal comfort level does not provide freedom of choice. It erodes freedom of choice. Now the retailer does not have any recourse against an employee who states, mistakenly in your opinion , or not, that *they do not have to do their job because a court said so.* Keep in mind that PHARMACISTS are LICENSED by the State. You either: (1) Do what the State fucking tells you to do.. OR (2) Surrender your Pharmacist License, and find a different line of work. No-one held a gun to their heads and forced them to beg for a license.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/9/2007 5:51:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold The point is, Goddess20, that none of this should be legislated at all. Either it is sold or it is not. It is a choice of the individual retailer or chain. Employees of that retailer or chain then should follow the company policy. If they choose to have more than one pharmacist on staff at each shift and allow the dissenter the personal freedom of not filling that particular perscription, then fine. Running to court to force an issue into line with a personal comfort level does not provide freedom of choice. It erodes freedom of choice. Now the retailer does not have any recourse against an employee who states, mistakenly in your opinion , or not, that *they do not have to do their job because a court said so.* Keep in mind that PHARMACISTS are LICENSED by the State. You either: (1) Do what the State fucking tells you to do.. OR (2) Surrender your Pharmacist License, and find a different line of work. No-one held a gun to their heads and forced them to beg for a license. And no one forced My daughter to beg for a food handler's license either. But if she wanted to work in the industry she needed it. And I did not beg for a driver's license. I studied the materials and passed a test. It is about laws and regulations as well as passing a test to exhibit reasonable knowledge. I am not privy to the requirements for pharmacist licensing, which is state by state with some reciprocal honor of license. But, to the best of My knowledge fargle, that licensing is not hinged upon where you work or under what circumstances. If the retailer you apply to does not dispense certain medications, it is not the business of the state. Certain rules are okay and we have to live with those things that are reasonable to ensure confidence that the people serving us in sensitive areas are qualified to do so. It is when we start blurring the lines between what is reasonable and what a few people make a lot of noise about, that we get into trouble. If people continue to be complacent and decide that it is okay to legislate that, then it is just another doorway to removing personal freedom of choice in the name of "the greater good".

CrescentLuna -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/9/2007 6:08:47 PM)
I feel this really completely ridiculous - there are facilities to work in wherein you'll never, ever have to dispense Plan B. WHY are you taking a job that you KNOW you're going to have a problem with? I didn't work at a catholic hospital despite an offered job for the opposite reason as this, I didn't want my opinions/beliefs on reproductive choices to be part of my job. The problem isn't a decision to stock it or not, a company can choose to or not (although it looks like a hot seller, despite the accounts here of it rotting on the shelves http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/22/AR2007082201593.html) one can see it is that some days they'll sell it to you and some days they won't, depending on the individual seller's opinions. Which is a bullshit way to run a business. Would I appreciate going to the mall and one day being sold chocolate and another not because of ONE employee's beliefs? Some people have some pretty strong opinions about where items like chocolate or diamonds come from - so they have a choice not to sell them - by not working in a place that sells them! And frankly, in a rural area there may ONLY be one pharmacy in town, not everywhere is blessed with a CVS every three blocks. Blithely saying telling a 19-year-old who may not be able to drive that they can just go to another place 20 miles away isn't going to cut it. And with Plan B time is very, very much of the essense. Personally, I take a huge affront to the idea that the only people who should be able to get Plan B have to be victims somehow. Fuck that, it is a legal OTC medication, I shouldn't need to tell a sob story and justify myself to anyone, including a pharmacist, to get it! Yes, I've used it, I used it because a condom slipped off, the one and only time in two years of condom useage that happened. I was REALLY glad I didn't have to take up valuable space in an emergency room to get it, and instead could walk into a pharmacy, show them my ID, take my pills and go home. Nobody cared if I was married, how many partners I had, how many times I'd used it (though crap, it was $45, anyone that is using that primary birth control must have some money to spend), and that's the way it should be.

juliaoceania -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/9/2007 6:09:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 In cases of rape, hospitals have "rape kits" which the morning after pill is part of. So that's not really part of the debate. The most popular reason women would get a morning after pill from the pharmacy would be if birth control failed. Like say if the condom broke for example. There was recently a debate about the morning after pill about whether to make it over the counter. The FDA ruled against doing that because people are afraid teenagers would use it without their parent's approval and also because some believe it makes it harder for the state to identify incest or child abuse. So basically if you are raped, do not want to report the rape for whatever reason... fear of reprisal being just one example.. you are basically screwed because the neighborhood pharmacy has decided to play god.

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/9/2007 6:39:17 PM)
quote: And no one forced My daughter to beg for a food handler's license either. But if she wanted to work in the industry she needed it. And I did not beg for a driver's license. I studied the materials and passed a test. It is about laws and regulations as well as passing a test to exhibit reasonable knowledge. I mean "beg" more in the sense of "obsequiously petition". Your daughter CHOSE to work in food service, and therefore she CHOSE to fulfill the legal requirements to be hired into that position. You CHOSE to apply for a driver's license. Pharmacists CHOSE to apply for a Pharmacist's License. and their employers CHOSE to be regulated pharmacies. If someone don't like the regulations enacted by The People, they can chose a line of work which doesn't require adherence to the personally objectionable regulations -- OR -- they can break the law, and take their chances with a jury.

Goddess20 -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 3:52:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold Keep in mind that PHARMACISTS are LICENSED by the State. You either: (1) Do what the State fucking tells you to do.. OR (2) Surrender your Pharmacist License, and find a different line of work. No-one held a gun to their heads and forced them to beg for a license. Exactly! If you can't do a job, and I mean the whole job, for whatever reason then you shouldn't do it! If it's against your beliefs then either suck it up, do YOUR JOB, the job YOU trained for, applied for then agreed to and sell the pills. OR FIND ANOTHER JOB! Simple as that really.

subrob1967 -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 4:32:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle If someone don't like the regulations enacted by The People, they can chose a line of work which doesn't require adherence to the personally objectionable regulations -- OR -- they can break the law, and take their chances with a jury. The whole point of the OP and article was that pharmacists DON'T have to sell the product thanks to a judge. The regulations by "The People" coincide with certain pharmacists beliefs. quote: ORIGINAL:Goddess20 Its just another thing that stupid people haven't looked in to and don't understand but have some 'moral' objection to without having the knowledge to know what they are objecting too! I kinda think a pharmacist knows a lot more about the pills they're dispensing than your average Goddess. After all, they go to school for six years to learn this shit.

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 5:41:42 AM)
Reading back over the decision, I notice that the religious fundamentalists don't enjoy legal protection UNLESS "they refer the customer to another nearby source" So, while they don't HAVE TO fill the prescription, they DO HAVE TO refer the customer to a pharmacy which will. Legally, it's easier for the Pharmacy to just fill the script, than to ensure they've done everything needed to benefit from the ruling. I expect the major pharmacies' corporate lawyers will just do that. quote: Kristen Waggoner, an attorney for the pharmacists and drug store owner, said, "We believe strongly that forcing someone to choose between their religious beliefs and actually losing their business or their career is unconstitutional." So, a Muslim cab-driver can refuse to pick her up, because her head is uncovered, and she's un-escorted? Interesting hypothesis she has. I wonder if the State will appeal the decision.

Goddess20 -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 10:36:35 AM)
I know what I need to! And I know that there isn't any real reason why anyone (especially a pharmacist) should take objection to supply the morning after pill. It doesn't go against any moral or religious beliefs (not anymore than a condom or the pill does anyway). So it's idiotic people who just have a problem with something for no apparent reason! If thats the line of job you chose then do your job and give out the pills you are suppose to, thats what they are getting paid for!

Petronius -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 12:48:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b GoddessDustyGold pretty much stole my thunder, but I don’t mind too much. It’s nice to know that there is someone around here who actually understands the concept of freedom. That freedom means making personal choices, respecting (which is not the same as agreeing with) other’s choices, and most importantly – not expecting society to bend over backward and kiss it’s own ass in order to satisfy every whiners whim (in other words, accepting responsibility for the consequences of our choices). In a case like this it really is very simple folks. If the pharmacy owner(s) wants to sell the morning after pill, they can. If they don’t, they shouldn’t have to. It’s nobody’s business what their reasons are. If an employee objects to the pharmacy’s policy on the morning after pill, they are under no obligation to work there – they are not a slave after all. If they want that paycheck, then they’ll have to decide (their freedom of choice in other words) which is more important to them, their paycheck or their principles. DomMeinCT said: quote: What if the driver of a (public or private) ambulance company refused to answer a call at the home of someone whose religion he despised? In the case of a public ambulance, such a driver should be fired because the government has no business discriminating against it’s own citizens. If it is a private company then the private company’s rules are in play and that driver, just like the above mentioned pharmacy employee is bound to it if he wants to work there. I don’t think the analogy holds all that well, though. An ambulance company that discriminated wouldn’t last very long. I mean can you imagine? "Holier Than Thou Ambulance Service, what’s your emergency?" "Quick, I need an ambulance at 555 Any Street! I think my husband is having a heart attack!" "And what religion is your husband ma’am?" "What! What does that matter? Hurry! He’s having trouble breathing!" "I’m sorry ma’am, I need to know what religion he is." "We’re Catholic! What does it fucking matter, you bitch! He’s passed out, hurry! For the love of God, please hurry!" "I’m sorry ma’am, but being Catholic, neither of you actually love God. In fact you are both Hell bound sinners and we won’t dirty our hands with you. You’ll have to try another ambulance service. Have a nice day." Click... bzzzzzz... I don’t think such an ambulance service would last to long. P.S. to GoddessDustyGold: I just perverd your profile and for a woman of 99 years, I must say you are damn fine looking. I hope I can look that good when I’m 99. Actually it is very simple. The Republicans are whiners again. The druggist is the person who started opposing freedom: the freedom of any person to sell whatever drugs they want and make a profit on it. The druggist doesn't want the local bodega owner to have that freedom; the druggist wants a monopoly, awarded by the state, that significantly reduces competition, and significantly raises his salary. Then, when he gets the monopoly that blocks the freedoms of others, he whines when people actually want him to do the job he was given the monopoly to do. If you can't do the work of a druggist for moral reasons don't be a druggist. If you're a Jehovah's Witness who doesn't believe in blood transfusions, don't insist on your right to become a surgeon while demanding that you be permitted to skip transfusions. If you think that Black people are the spawn of Satan, don't ask to become a cop and then insist on your moral right to ignore helping crime victims if they're black. etc. etc. It really is simple: if you accept government regulation to benefit yourself and hurt the other citizens, don't complain about the regulation.

Owner59 -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 1:00:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Petronius quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b GoddessDustyGold pretty much stole my thunder, but I don’t mind too much. It’s nice to know that there is someone around here who actually understands the concept of freedom. That freedom means making personal choices, respecting (which is not the same as agreeing with) other’s choices, and most importantly – not expecting society to bend over backward and kiss it’s own ass in order to satisfy every whiners whim (in other words, accepting responsibility for the consequences of our choices). In a case like this it really is very simple folks. If the pharmacy owner(s) wants to sell the morning after pill, they can. If they don’t, they shouldn’t have to. It’s nobody’s business what their reasons are. If an employee objects to the pharmacy’s policy on the morning after pill, they are under no obligation to work there – they are not a slave after all. If they want that paycheck, then they’ll have to decide (their freedom of choice in other words) which is more important to them, their paycheck or their principles. DomMeinCT said: quote: What if the driver of a (public or private) ambulance company refused to answer a call at the home of someone whose religion he despised? In the case of a public ambulance, such a driver should be fired because the government has no business discriminating against it’s own citizens. If it is a private company then the private company’s rules are in play and that driver, just like the above mentioned pharmacy employee is bound to it if he wants to work there. I don’t think the analogy holds all that well, though. An ambulance company that discriminated wouldn’t last very long. I mean can you imagine? "Holier Than Thou Ambulance Service, what’s your emergency?" "Quick, I need an ambulance at 555 Any Street! I think my husband is having a heart attack!" "And what religion is your husband ma’am?" "What! What does that matter? Hurry! He’s having trouble breathing!" "I’m sorry ma’am, I need to know what religion he is." "We’re Catholic! What does it fucking matter, you bitch! He’s passed out, hurry! For the love of God, please hurry!" "I’m sorry ma’am, but being Catholic, neither of you actually love God. In fact you are both Hell bound sinners and we won’t dirty our hands with you. You’ll have to try another ambulance service. Have a nice day." Click... bzzzzzz... I don’t think such an ambulance service would last to long. P.S. to GoddessDustyGold: I just perverd your profile and for a woman of 99 years, I must say you are damn fine looking. I hope I can look that good when I’m 99. Actually it is very simple. The Republicans are whiners again. The druggist is the person who started opposing freedom: the freedom of any person to sell whatever drugs they want and make a profit on it. The druggist doesn't want the local bodega owner to have that freedom; the druggist wants a monopoly, awarded by the state, that significantly reduces competition, and significantly raises his salary. Then, when he gets the monopoly that blocks the freedoms of others, he whines when people actually want him to do the job he was given the monopoly to do. If you can't do the work of a druggist for moral reasons don't be a druggist. If you're a Jehovah's Witness who doesn't believe in blood transfusions, don't insist on your right to become a surgeon while demanding that you be permitted to skip transfusions. If you think that Black people are the spawn of Satan, don't ask to become a cop and then insist on your moral right to ignore helping crime victims if they're black. etc. etc. It really is simple: if you accept government regulation to benefit yourself and hurt the other citizens, don't complain about the regulation. Another win for conservatives,sense they`ll be able to get those drugs if they need/want them. It`s the poor person,and those with few options,that will be harmed by this,not republicans. Win ,win, for republicans....

FangsNfeet -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 1:11:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Is this a good thing? And victims of rape,what shall they do? Go to another place,like Sen.Joe Lieberman(Conn), once suggested? And if another place is to far to go,what then? This is going to hurt women. In the case of RAPE, the ER will have the morning after pill. Even if a condum should break during intercorse, you can still go to an emergency room. Otherwise, I don't see major retail pharmacies allowing it's pharmasist to refuse it's costomers on such a request.

Owner59 -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 1:21:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Is this a good thing? And victims of rape,what shall they do? Go to another place,like Sen.Joe Lieberman(Conn), once suggested? And if another place is to far to go,what then? This is going to hurt women. In the case of RAPE, the ER will have the morning after pill. Even if a condum should break during intercorse, you can still go to an emergency room. Otherwise, I don't see major retail pharmacies allowing it's pharmasist to refuse it's costomers on such a request. Why should any female,of any kind and status,be exposed in any way,to the harm that this law (and laws like them)might cause. What amount of women suffering because of this law,is acceptable? Even one person,is to many. This is not a matter of balance.They are part of the healthcare system,who serves the general public.

Zensee -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 2:18:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 The whole point of the OP and article was that pharmacists DON'T have to sell the product thanks to a judge. The regulations by "The People" coincide with certain pharmacists beliefs. No. The opinion of one judge coincides with a certain opinion held by a subset of the general public. Big difference. quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL:Goddess20 Its just another thing that stupid people haven't looked in to and don't understand but have some 'moral' objection to without having the knowledge to know what they are objecting too! I kinda think a pharmacist knows a lot more about the pills they're dispensing than your average Goddess. After all, they go to school for six years to learn this shit. No again. While a pharmacist might refuse to fill a prescription for reasons like drug incompatibilities or counterindications, their professional knowledge of drug efficacy does not extend to knowing and interpreting the will of "god". Z.

greenearth21 -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 2:38:30 PM)
I feel that women, not men, should make the laws that govern all this womanly related stuff. Not men. Just my opinion. At the same rate...the town slut could abuse the system and use this form as an easy/convenient abortion...where as a woman who truly needs it (rape, incest, etc) may have to go through barbed wire just to get what she needs. Pharmacist should do his job whether he agrees or disagrees...the woman's problem ormoral conduct is not his problem.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 2:44:20 PM)
Is this the same NeedToUseYou? I actually agree with this! quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou This ruling is quite ridiculous, IMO. The pharmacist works for the pharmacy, if the pharmacy selects to sell the drug, then the pharmacists opinion is made when he took the job. His right is to quit or sell it. I don't understand the logic of this ruling which is pretty much saying an employee can select not to perform their job according to the standards specified by the company, because they don't believe its right. That quite frankly is stupid. The only way it would ever be valid was if the company wanted the employee to participate in something illegal, which is not what this case was about. You make these kind of decisions when you take the job you don't dictate to your employer about your beliefs afterwards. It's quite sickening.

CrescentLuna -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 2:49:20 PM)
1. A catholic hospital can run an ER and does not have to have the morning after pill. I would sincerely hope that if someone were taken by ambulance to the closest ER following a rape it would be one that would stock it, but life doesn't ALWAYS work out that way. However, this would be an ideal place to work for these pharmcists that don't want to dispense the pill. 2. The morning-after pill is not an abortion! It is a high dose of birth control that prevents implantation. It works like a birth control pill except it'll still work right after you've had sex instead of taking up to a week and needing to be started during or right after one's period.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 3:13:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Is this the same NeedToUseYou? I actually agree with this! quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou This ruling is quite ridiculous, IMO. The pharmacist works for the pharmacy, if the pharmacy selects to sell the drug, then the pharmacists opinion is made when he took the job. His right is to quit or sell it. I don't understand the logic of this ruling which is pretty much saying an employee can select not to perform their job according to the standards specified by the company, because they don't believe its right. That quite frankly is stupid. The only way it would ever be valid was if the company wanted the employee to participate in something illegal, which is not what this case was about. You make these kind of decisions when you take the job you don't dictate to your employer about your beliefs afterwards. It's quite sickening. Which is exactly what I was saying. It is not up to an employee (Any Employee! Pharmacist or not) to go running to court because he is having a moral problem with some aspect of the job. It is a privacy matter and the company either needs to accomodate his beliefs and make sure the job is done in some other way or tell the employee to find work elsewhere. Or the store owner or chain can and should have the personal freedom to not carry the product, whatever that product might be. It is not up to the court to dictate the job fulfillment expectations of employees of private businesses based upon the employees' personal moral codes. This is so simple. It is not about whether or not this should be available. It is available. If it isn't in one place, it will be somewhere else. *It is not about* those who might have a more difficult time because there is not a drugstore on every corner. *It is not about* those who do not want to expose themselves by going to an emergency room. *It is not about* a win for the republicans. *It is not about* pharmacies being a part of the healthcare system. (They are not, btw, they are private businesses.) *The real issue here* lies in the interference of the courts into private matters, and the way people so quickly lose sight of the precedents being set over and over. *The real issue here* is that, once again, a whiner with a bug up their ass ran to Nanny and cried "No fair, make it better for me". *The real issue here* is that the judge actually ruled in favor of the whiner instead of saying "grow up and follow the rules of the boss, or go get another job." *It is about* another loss of personal freedom.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875