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.
A woman in Arizona needed to fill a prescription for a miscarriage and the pharmacist refuses to fill it because of his religious beliefs. The woman had already seen her doctor and her fetus had no heartbeat.
The pharmacist needs to be fired. His ignorance is dangerous and he needs to choose a different line of work. It's unconscionable that he does not understand what a miscarriage is after getting a doctor of pharmacy degree.
Furthermore, if he does not want to provide the medication for the purposes of elective abortion he needs to be in another business, too.
Or she could just go to a different pharmacist and not make a big thing out of it. When you compromise your religious beliefs you start compromising everything. Although in this case, since the fetus had already died I'm not understanding what his issue is. I couldn't click on the link because I think my computer is dying. It won't load anything that has pictures.
Or she could just go to a different pharmacist and not make a big thing out of it. When you compromise your religious beliefs you start compromising everything. Although in this case, since the fetus had already died I'm not understanding what his issue is. I couldn't click on the link because I think my computer is dying. It won't load anything that has pictures.
Yeah...no big deal. I've lived in towns where there was only one pharmacist and it would have been quite a drive to get to another. But, hey, no biggie - the trauma of a miscarriage and it's dead anyway - let's worry about a pharmacist who won't perform their trained duties for irrational reasons. I'd totally skewer them on social media and let THEM decide.
I'm a libertarian and have a little different take on it:
I think the rights of the pharmacist are violated if he's forced by the govt to go against his religious beliefs. This only becomes a problem if there's not another pharmacist handy who will fill the prescription. What if a person in need wanted to confess his sins but the only church in town was a synagogue? Should the rabbi be forced to hear confession? [For the record, I'm an atheist. I have no ax to grind here.]
While many (if not most) of us consider abortion a medical procedure that has value in protecting a mother's health (either physical or mental), some people have religious beliefs saying it is murder. That's their right. If we force them to act against those beliefs in this instance, then the way is clear for the govt to force us to do anything the majority feels is acceptable. Maybe in the future, slavery will again reach a point of public favor-- will Big Brother force Walmart to sell slaves?
At least the anti-abortion position is endorsed by an institution that has traditional standing in the community (like 2000 yr's worth). What about the pharmacies that are now refusing to fill scripts for narcotics? Their position is not based on the philosophy of an accepted, traditional institution. Shouldn't they be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license, making a medical decision without having taken the pt's history or done a physical exam or examined the lab data?
I'm a libertarian and have a little different take on it:
I think the rights of the pharmacist are violated if he's forced by the govt to go against his religious beliefs. This only becomes a problem if there's not another pharmacist handy who will fill the prescription. What if a person in need wanted to confess his sins but the only church in town was a synagogue? Should the rabbi be forced to hear confession? [For the record, I'm an atheist. I have no ax to grind here.]
While many (if not most) of us consider abortion a medical procedure that has value in protecting a mother's health (either physical or mental), some people have religious beliefs saying it is murder. That's their right. If we force them to act against those beliefs in this instance, then the way is clear for the govt to force us to do anything the majority feels is acceptable. Maybe in the future, slavery will again reach a point of public favor-- will Big Brother force Walmart to sell slaves?
At least the anti-abortion position is endorsed by an institution that has traditional standing in the community (like 2000 yr's worth). What about the pharmacies that are now refusing to fill scripts for narcotics? Their position is not based on the philosophy of an accepted, traditional institution. Shouldn't they be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license, making a medical decision without having taken the pt's history or done a physical exam or examined the lab data?
In this instance the problem is a pharmacist who does not understand the fundamental difference between a miscarriage and an elective abortion. That is a very big hole in his fund of knowledge. It makes me wonder what other deficits there are in his education.
No, pharmacists should not refuse to fill narcotic prescriptions, either.
If you cannot fill the prescription for every patient who comes to your store you should choose another profession.
I'm a libertarian and have a little different take on it:
I think the rights of the pharmacist are violated if he's forced by the govt to go against his religious beliefs. This only becomes a problem if there's not another pharmacist handy who will fill the prescription. What if a person in need wanted to confess his sins but the only church in town was a synagogue? Should the rabbi be forced to hear confession? [For the record, I'm an atheist. I have no ax to grind here.]
While many (if not most) of us consider abortion a medical procedure that has value in protecting a mother's health (either physical or mental), some people have religious beliefs saying it is murder. That's their right. If we force them to act against those beliefs in this instance, then the way is clear for the govt to force us to do anything the majority feels is acceptable. Maybe in the future, slavery will again reach a point of public favor-- will Big Brother force Walmart to sell slaves?
At least the anti-abortion position is endorsed by an institution that has traditional standing in the community (like 2000 yr's worth). What about the pharmacies that are now refusing to fill scripts for narcotics? Their position is not based on the philosophy of an accepted, traditional institution. Shouldn't they be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license, making a medical decision without having taken the pt's history or done a physical exam or examined the lab data?
Does this even apply after a miscarriage? The fetus was already dead. You can't murder something that's dead. And don't say the pharmacist didn't know. The patient informed him.
In this instance the problem is a pharmacist who does not understand the fundamental difference between a miscarriage and an elective abortion. That is a very big hole in his fund of knowledge. It makes me wonder what other deficits there are in his education.
No, pharmacists should not refuse to fill narcotic prescriptions, either.
If you cannot fill the prescription for every patient who comes to your store you should choose another profession.
I am not buying the slippery slope argument.
Agree
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCZ
Does this even apply after a miscarriage? The fetus was already dead. You can't murder something that's dead. And don't say the pharmacist didn't know. The patient informed him.
Patients should not need to justify their legal prescriptions to the pharmacist. That is between the patient and her doctor. If the pharmacist has concerns about the appropriateness of the prescription, he should speak with the doctor. Once the doctor confirms it, it is no longer the pharmacist's business to interfere. Especially if the concern is based on his own religious beliefs.
It's right up there with people who don't eat pork for religious reasons refusing to serve or sell pork products to others after being hired as a waitress. Do your job.
In this instance the problem is a pharmacist who does not understand the fundamental difference between a miscarriage and an elective abortion. That is a very big hole in his fund of knowledge. It makes me wonder what other deficits there are in his education.
No, pharmacists should not refuse to fill narcotic prescriptions, either.
If you cannot fill the prescription for every patient who comes to your store you should choose another profession.
I am not buying the slippery slope argument.
The slippery slope argument is very valid. It started with decongestants and agreeing to have your name entered in a fed data base just because you have allergies. Then it progressed to narcotics. Small animal vets are being pressured by govt to do backgrd checks onntheir clients before prescribing drugs for dogs.
There is nothing to stop the govt from withholding any meds the govt deems dangerous, unimportant etc. its already being done. All you have to do is look at the formulary for the drug part of Medicare. Money is a big deterrent to the purchase of any drug.
As far as this pharmacist, the news reported that it is within his/her right not to fill any prescription they morally disagreed with. But they must refer the patient to a pharmacy that will fill the prescription. They didnt suggest this was the only pharmacy around.
Despite the law in Arizona, Walgreens told local 10 News that company policy requires an objecting pharmacist to refer the prescription to another pharmacist or manager on duty. That is not what Arteaga said she experienced, even though there were two other employees who could have helped her.
“I was not given the option to have someone else in that store give me the prescription,” she told 10 News. “Those guidelines were broken.”
There were other employees there who could have helped her, but she wasn't given that option.
The pharmacist did not follow company policy and should be fired.
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.
