Ok, this is getting ridiculous

[Tom Collins]

WTF?
The woman was raped!! This was not the result of any 'wanton behaviour' on the part of the woman. SHE WAS RAPED, for fuck's sake!

Where the hell does the morality of those pharmacists fit in with the trauma, pain, emotional hell of this woman? Who are they to say, that because some brute decided that it was his right to invade her, she has to - possibly - endure a pregnancy, and bear and raise a child that is the result of a RAPE??

Because these 'holier than though' moralists decree that all life is precious, even if the guy is caught, prosecuted and imprisoned (possibly), serves his time and then just moves on from it (to his next victim, maybe), she on the other hand has to live with that horror, and relive it, every single day of her pregnancy, every moment of the birth, every single day that that child is alive, every single time she looks at the child, what's the betting that all she can see is the face, or hear the voice of her rapist.

That kind of relationship will do wonders for the mother/child bonding. Not.

The mother suffers, the child suffers, all because some pharmacist decided to play god.

Any country that doesn't designate and recognise the difference between consenting sexual acts (I'm not judging, its no business of mine what sexual acts take place between other CONSENTING adults), and RAPE, has a very 'confused' idea of what constitutes morality. (I'm choosing my words very carefully here, as a current and temporary guest in this wonderful country. )

Sheesh.

I hate to say this, but it's true. Many bible thumping, right-to-lifers would tell you that if the woman has gotten pregnant from a rape it is still God's Will that it happened. According to these people, every fertilization is "sacred" regardless of the circumstances. Basically, once the fetus is naturally expelled from the uterus they wash their hands of it, but heaven help you if you try to interfere before then.

 

[JamesSD]

I hate to say this, but it's true. Many bible thumping, right-to-lifers would tell you that if the woman has gotten pregnant from a rape it is still God's Will that it happened. According to these people, every fertilization is "sacred" regardless of the circumstances. Basically, once the fetus is naturally expelled from the uterus they wash their hands of it, but heaven help you if you try to interfere before then.

I'm pretty sure the majority in this country, including many Christians, are willing to allow abortions in the case of rape and incest. There are a few people way waaaay out there, but I'm pretty sure they're the minority.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm pretty sure the majority in this country, including many Christians, are willing to allow abortions in the case of rape and incest. There are a few people way waaaay out there, but I'm pretty sure they're the minority.

A very well organised and influential minority.

 

[Pure]

to James and Colly

James

perhaps a majority of *people*, the public at large, religious and nonreligious, support the rape incest exceptions.

but at least one influential group, RCatholics (generally and officially) have a problem with abortion for (results of) rape, since an innocent 'baby' is paying for daddy's crime.

Note to Colly,

Don't you think you're being inconsistent in allowing dr's consciences to dictate a refusing a procedure and NOT allowing pharmacist's conscience to refuse to fill a prescription. I believe the laws being drafted for pharmacists do require making a referral (where there is a refusal based on conscience), but as in the case of dr.'s, how do you enforce it? and suppose the referral is to a very expensive (and/or distant) alternative?

The law perhaps would be fulfilled if the pharmacist simply puts a sign on the wall of his Arizona store, "In cases where your prescription cannot be filled, here, we suggest you contact Walgren's Pharmacy in Los Angeles at this address and phone."

 

[Lisa Denton]

I think if this pharmacist was raped, and refused the morning after pill at her pharmacy, before the nine month pregnancy was over it may no longer be an un-wanted child.

Perhaps the rapist, released after 2 months because it was only his fifth offense, would sue for child custody, then of course the rapist could sue her for child support also, for a mere 18 years.

If she is one of the ones who "are way out there" he could prolly rape her again for another 18 years, one way or the other, or both.



This is crap, me shoveling a hypothetical and unrealistic scenario down your throats, when you don't want it. Just like a pharmacist dispensing drugs with politics and his or her moral and religious views.

Why doesn't this pharmacist become an abortion doctor and refuse to perform abortions, you know, go "really way out there" and make a difference.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Some extremists would argue that the raped woman should make an effort to find her rapist and marry him, so the child would be borught up by its biological parents...

 

[zeb1094]

Some extremists would argue that the raped woman should make an effort to find her rapist and marry him, so the child would be borught up by its biological parents...

What a load of bullshit!

 

[Svenskaflicka]

What a load of bullshit!

Ah, but it's true! Don't you remember the thread last year, about an African girl (mid-teens, I think) who was raped by a man from her village, and when she and her father reported the man to the police, and the case went to trial, the judge said to the girl "why are you being so stubborn? He wants to marry you! Why won't you agree to him?"


And any judge in Sweden will tell you that it's best for kids to be with their BIOLOGICAL parents, no matter how bad they treat their kids, rather than a loving, caring foster home, because biological parents are BEST for the child.

I think it has something to do with chemicals that only the biological parents have. I've asked M what these chemicals might be, but she's not sure. We suspect it's the same chemicals that turn every mother's saliva into a cleaning fluid.

 

[zeb1094]

Ah, but it's true! Don't you remember the thread last year, about an African girl (mid-teens, I think) who was raped by a man from her village, and when she and her father reported the man to the police, and the case went to trial, the judge said to the girl "why are you being so stubborn? He wants to marry you! Why won't you agree to him?"


And any judge in Sweden will tell you that it's best for kids to be with their BIOLOGICAL parents, no matter how bad they treat their kids, rather than a loving, caring foster home, because biological parents are BEST for the child.

I think it has something to do with chemicals that only the biological parents have. I've asked M what these chemicals might be, but she's not sure. We suspect it's the same chemicals that turn every mother's saliva into a cleaning fluid.

And every judges brain to mush who thinks that way. They have to be completely insane to subject children to negelect and abuse by placing them back with unfit parent who in all honesty don't really give a crap about their children.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

James

perhaps a majority of *people*, the public at large, religious and nonreligious, support the rape incest exceptions.

but at least one influential group, RCatholics (generally and officially) have a problem with abortion for (results of) rape, since an innocent 'baby' is paying for daddy's crime.

Note to Colly,

Don't you think you're being inconsistent in allowing dr's consciences to dictate a refusing a procedure and NOT allowing pharmacist's conscience to refuse to fill a prescription. I believe the laws being drafted for pharmacists do require making a referral (where there is a refusal based on conscience), but as in the case of dr.'s, how do you enforce it? and suppose the referral is to a very expensive (and/or distant) alternative?

The law perhaps would be fulfilled if the pharmacist simply puts a sign on the wall of his Arizona store, "In cases where your prescription cannot be filled, here, we suggest you contact Walgren's Pharmacy in Los Angeles at this address and phone."

I don't see any inconsistancy pure. Frankly, I wouldn't want a doctor who was doing a proceedure because the law mandated he do it. I'd rather have someone who was sympathetic. Point is, when I go see a doctor, I'm following the system that exists. If i want an abortion, birth control, psycotropics or pain medication, I have to go see one. I'll have to go through several, before I find one I like, who I trust and who is sympathetic to my desire in the situation. once I've jumped through those hoops however, I've done as the system dictates. I enter Rite aide with a legally written perscription, issued by a liscened doctor.

At that point, who the fuck is a pharmacist to decide they won't do their fucking job and fill a perscription? Do they have medical experteses that gives them the authority to counter a Doctor's course of treatment? It's insane.

It's like a court clerk refusing to file my divorce papers after I've been though the trial and won, based on her moral conviction marriage is forever.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

It's like a court clerk refusing to file my divorce papers after I've been though the trial and won, based on her moral conviction marriage is forever.

Or a waitress refusing to deliver a pork product that I ordered because SHE happens to be Jewish. Or am I getting off track here?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Or a waitress refusing to deliver a pork product that I ordered because SHE happens to be Jewish. Or am I getting off track here?

I think you are right on target.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

On a slightly more serious note, if the pharmacist is unwilling to perform his/her duties due to a moral conflict, then he or she is in the wrong profession and should leave or be terminated from their employment. I realize this does little good for the woman in this scenario as she would be forced to continue to search for something when time was of the essence.

Can anyone imagine it if . . . oh say . . . the clerk at Walgreens decided that selling condoms violated his/her religious principles and refused to transact that kind of sale? Anyone think that he/she would be allowed to remain employed there?

 

[zeb1094]

On a slightly more serious note, if the pharmacist is unwilling to perform his/her duties due to a moral conflict, then he or she is in the wrong profession and should leave or be terminated from their employment. I realize this does little good for the woman in this scenario as she would be forced to continue to search for something when time was of the essence.

Can anyone imagine it if . . . oh say . . . the clerk at Walgreens decided that selling condoms violated his/her religious principles and refused to transact that kind of sale? Anyone think that he/she would be allowed to remain employed there?

No. And as I said in an earlier post on this thread, that very thing happened in the Walgreens Pharmacy where the pharmacist refused to fill a prescription and as suspended by management, on the spot, without pay.

Horray for Walgreens.

 

[sophia jane]

I think one of the underlying problems is that a pharmacist's rights and obligations is not as cut and dried as a doctor's.
For example, my father in law has a problem with pain medications because of a back problem. He takes too much, too often, and he's been known to go to several drs. to get multiple scripts. Know what happens next? The pharmacist calls his wife and together they decide which scripts get filled. While this helps the wife moderate his usage, it's absolutely a privacy violation. The doctors aren't allowed to call the wife and discuss his treatment (without his permission), so why is the pharmacist?

I agree completely that if you have a legal script for any medication, whether it's insulin, vicodin, birth control, or whatever, the pharmacist- just in being a pharmacist (a person, who by profession fills scripts)- has an obligation to fill that script. And further, he shouldn't be allowed to express his personal views to the customer. If I go to Walmart, and the cashier proceeds to go off on me because I'm buying condoms, I'm going to complain to management; why is a pharmacist allowed to let his opinions interfere with his job?

 

[Svenskaflicka]

And every judges brain to mush who thinks that way. They have to be completely insane to subject children to negelect and abuse by placing them back with unfit parent who in all honesty don't really give a crap about their children.

Oh, they DO care a lot about their children. Those little buggers make excellent weapons against your ex-spouse.

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly,

I do think there's an inconsistency in this privilege you give doctors. Do you think it's a good prvilege to give to hospitals, *as is presently the case.* Some hospitals wont perform abortions, even if a dr. was willing. In some regions, that might be the only hospital for 100 miles; so there's a great burden imposed. I think drsd and hospital refusal is MORE serious because they are in much shorter supply than pharmacists.

It's like a court clerk refusing to file my divorce papers after I've been though the trial and won, based on her moral conviction marriage is forever.

Nice analogy. Should a policeman be hired for a 'beat' (i.e., not the desk) when s/he opposes all killing? (would never shoot anyone). Or, should s/he be retained on the force after [his views become evident, when] he first refuses to kill when most agree it would have been proper (a man was about to throw a kid out the window)?

 

[zeb1094]

Should a policeman be hired for a 'beat' (i.e., not the desk) when s/he opposes all killing? (would never shoot anyone).

Unfortunately, they may wind up dead because it's for damn sure the criminal won't hesitate to shoot.

Or, should s/he be retained on the force after [his views become evident, when] he first refuses to kill when most agree it would have been proper (a man was about to throw a kid out the window)?

Too many unknown variables here. What floor window? Is the man the kids father? Why is he throwing the kid out the window? Is he armed? Deadly force would only be used by the police as a last resort. Would backing off and letting things calm down keep him from tossing the kid out the window? Is he responsive to you(the police officer) talking to him? Too, many unknowns here to formulate an opinion or a course of action.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Okay. Here's why this is scary.

Knowing one or two things about pharmacies, there is the pharmacist (guy in back; job description: fill prescription, prepare mix drugs in way prescribed, don't make mistakes or else *gkk*), perhaps a Pharmacy Tech (assistant to pharmacist; job description, mostly double checking, unofficially takes over most if not all filling jobs, taking prescriptions, checking with doctors, handling medicine,) and clerk (cashier; job description, be in front sell the filled prescriptions from back. Pharmacy Techs also fill this job often.)

This means that the "conscientious objector" refusing to fill your prescription because of "moral values" is most likely to be some know-nothing, minimum wage clerk who might, might know the difference between zithromyocin and a boot to the head.

Scared?

Overall, the whole thing is ludicrous and is the obvious product of a legislation, proud of its inability to grasp any science issue harder than finding the on button on new style TV remotes, deciding to get its feet wet in order to stymie pro-choice people.

In an ideal world not run by idiots, pharmacists would have no, nada, zip, nil, ni hi, nin, nuu, no control over whether or not they fill a prescription. They are bound by the ethics of the office to merely confirm the prescription (if it is a drug that requires one) and fill accordingly and for over-the-counter drugs to simply sell it if it is carried in the store. The code of the office does not let them refuse to fill medicines as that can be someone's life in the balance and especially for prescriptions, birth control medicines have a distinct function in many non-sex related problems. My mom had to take birth control around the time they were removing benign ovarian cancer as part of her treatment regimen. A pharmacist is not a doctor, is a man set in charge to merely safeguard the drugs in his employ and see that they are prepared in a satisfactory manner so as to work exactly as needed. That is all any ethical pharmacist or pharmacist tech is supposed to do. Apparently these clerks didn't get the fucking memo.



Of course, that is in utopia land. In America, private enterprise laws and meddling politician has allowed a group of unethical people who have no right to deny prescriptions and over-the-counter medicine because they believe their personal connection to Jesus overtrumps any ethical responsibility their position in a pharmacy has. Glory. Fuckwits.