Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well if a person has a right to do with thier body as they wish under thier own moral conscience . then why can't the same respect be given to the doctor or pharmacy who under thier own conscience decide not to give out a morning after pill or contraceptive? and i'll give you a hint it has nothing to do with the hippocrateth oaths ..
Well, I sure hope it has nothing to do Hippocrates' oath -- since ancient Greeks freely practiced infanticide, and life, in their opinion, did not begin at conception; nor did it begin at birth, but only after the father chose to recognize the newborn. There is a fundamental difference between controlling one's own body and refusing to do one's job in an effort to control someone else's body. Believing in something does not justify doing whatever you want. Otherwise, why not give respect to people who "under their own conscience" want to climb a clock tower and start shooting into a crowd?
Well if a person has a right to do with thier body as they wish under thier own moral conscience . then why can't the same respect be given to the doctor or pharmacy who under thier own conscience decide not to give out a morning after pill or contraceptive? and i'll give you a hint it has nothing to do with the hippocrateth oaths ..
Actually it has a lot to do the the Hippocratic oath and the malpractice case law. If you decide to treat a medical case by application of leaches today, be prepared to lose your license and a good bit of money. As a medical practitioner, you are held to the ethics and standards of the industry. If you don't follow them, you lose your license to practice. It's a privilege, not a right.
I suspect you have a superficial understanding of the canons under which your husband operates. But the subject is really can a pharmacist refuse to fill a prescription on something other than medical grounds.
YES they can refuse to fill a rx for ethical and moral reasons in the state of Virginia. The pharmacy can refuse to carry a medication if they so choose. Until they are a government agency there is no one to tell them what kind of stock they are to order.
I have a very clear understanding of my husbands practice...I am also in the medical field, just not a doc.
Ya'll are blaming the Pharmacist when it's the Pharmacy that is banning the birth control. Private company, Their rules.
I say good for the owners. It's about time that people start standing up for what they believe again instead of caving in to popular opinion.
Doesn't matter if I personally agree. But I'll agree to their right to do it.
"We all" are using "pharmacist" and "pharmacy" interchangeably -- since a company, obviously, has no soul and no religious identity. A private company cannot enact whatever rules it wants. And not all ways of standing up for one's own opinion are appropriate. What if tomorrow someone decides to stand up for his own opinion by shooting random people? I mean, murder is unpopular an' all, but the important thing is not to cave in to popular opinion, right? You would applaud someone like that, too?
Look, it's like this: licenses are issued by the state, which is ruled by "popular opinion". You can't have your cake and eat it too. This pharmacist (or pharmacy, if you want to mince words) should have its licensed yanked -- and then it can stand up for what it believes in without one. The public does not owe anyone to enable them to promote their views.
YES they can refuse to fill a rx for ethical and moral reasons in the state of Virginia. The pharmacy can refuse to carry a medication if they so choose. Until they are a government agency there is no one to tell them what kind of stock they are to order.
I have a very clear understanding of my husbands practice...I am also in the medical field, just not a doc.
You're correct in the state of Virginia a pharmacist does not have to provide best quality medical care if morally he is in favor of imposing his parochial religious views on his patients.
"We all" are using "pharmacist" and "pharmacy" interchangeably -- since a company, obviously, has no soul and no religious identity. A private company cannot enact whatever rules it wants. And not all ways of standing up for one's own opinion are appropriate. What if tomorrow someone decides to stand up for his own opinion by shooting random people? I mean, murder is unpopular an' all, but the important thing is not to cave in to popular opinion, right? You would applaud someone like that, too?
Look, it's like this: licenses are issued by the state, which is ruled by "popular opinion". You can't have your cake and eat it too. This pharmacist (or pharmacy, if you want to mince words) should have its licensed yanked -- and then it can stand up for what it believes in without one. The public does not owe anyone to enable them to promote their views.
There are NO laws that state a pharmacy has to carry any medicine because they are available on the market. If that were the case, a pharmact would be required to carry EVERY medication which would be virtually impossible! This scenario would be exorbatantly expensive and huge amounts of drugs left to expire on the shelves.
Pharmacies buy just like any other stores do...by NEED. If there are high quantities of Betahistine being dispensed then high amounts of betahistine will be ordered, IF THEY WANT TO FILL IT.
There are no regulations requiring a pharmacist to dispense anything.
You're correct in the state of Virginia a pharmacist does not have to provide best quality medical care if morally he is in favor of imposing his parochial religious views on his patients.
There was no need to be snarky about the remark. I am only on here to state that there are no laws REQUIRING the pharmacist to fill ANYTHING and no laws REQUIRING the pharmacy to carry EVERY medication that is commercially available.
What an interesting social experiment.
I am in favor of a business being able to set it's own standards of operation. I don't hold out much hope for this pharmacy to succeed, since it's out of step with most everyone, but if, for example, it steps up the customer service for folks who are past their child bearing issues, I guess they might be all right.
It's just the same as a bar that wants to allow smoking. They should be able to decide what their own customers want.
So let me get this straight.. Some of you believe that your views of protecting your bodies rights are ok but if an individual stands up for his or her beliefs then they are wrong??? that sounds mighty hypocritical to me. Is this like the old adage my way or the highyway?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
