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.
I would say, no they don't have to carry "EVERY" medication. BUT they should be able to get any medication. Just as I, as the buyer for a bookstore, was able to get any book from our wholesalers. I am quite sure they could get any medication, the question is do they want to or not....?
I agree with the "getting" statement. However, the time to "get" is often unacceptable to the patient.
Example: My wife had major surgery recently. The Doctor wrote a script for "shots" that had to be injected into the stomach, once a day for 30 days. Our Pharmacy did not carry it. We had to go to another pharmacy. Yes, he could have gotten it but, it would have been several days - and we could not wait.
I agree with the "getting" statement. However, the time to "get" is often unacceptable to the patient.
Example: My wife had major surgery recently. The Doctor wrote a script for "shots" that had to be injected into the stomach, once a day for 30 days. Our Pharmacy did not carry it. We had to go to another pharmacy. Yes, he could have gotten it but, it would have been several days - and we could not wait.
Same with this "plan B" med -
Wow not at all the same. The pharmacy was willing to get the medication for her but you chose to go somewhere else. Your wife denied the pharmacy.
The hypothetical woman wanting contraceptives is being denied by the pharmacist refusing to give her the pills.
what Constitutional right exists that guarantees access to BC pills? you have the right to pursue happiness. you aren't entitled to it at the expense of someone else's moral conviction. it is up to the individual to find someone who is willing to fill the prescription and there are plenty of people out there who don't have moral objections to providing BC pills. I don't give a crap about sob stories. I don't care how small the town is. It is up to you to find someone to fill it. This is called liberty.
Wow not at all the same. The pharmacy was willing to get the medication for her but you chose to go somewhere else. Your wife denied the pharmacy.
The hypothetical woman wanting contraceptives is being denied by the pharmacist refusing to give her the pills.
So what? The point is - the pharmacy does not have to carry every med.
If the pharmacy that some woman goes to chooses not to carry the med she wants - so what? She can go to another pharmacy.
If the pharmacy does not want to carry a particular medication because of religious or ethical reasons - so what?
The consumer can take their business elsewhere
For crying out loud folks - this is not rocket science!
So what? The point is - the pharmacy does not have to carry every med.
If the pharmacy that some woman goes to chooses not to carry the med she wants - so what? She can go to another pharmacy.
If the pharmacy does not want to carry a particular medication because of religious or ethical reasons - so what?
The consumer can take their business elsewhere
For crying out loud folks - this is not rocket science!
They hate liberty and people with differing view points. This type of group think unfortunately makes up modern liberalism and bears little to no resemblance to classical liberal philosophy.
Since a job in the healthfield seems to take personal liberty out of the equation.....would you compell dr a to perfom an abortion? would you compell dr a to perform female circumsion? For that matter, would you compel Dr A to perform male circumsision on a male infant?
Even Drs have beliefs, a social code, morals if you will that they do not want to cross. Some you may agree with, others you may no. No matter --- no one should be compelled by the state to go against their moral code. If that means they are fired, so be it. If it means their business goes under, so be it. If it means a patient has to go to another pharmacy/take time off work/bum a ride so be it.
This is not letting a black man bleed to death on the stairs to the hospital because they didn't allow blacks ---- this is about choice and the ramifications of choice. If the pharmacist refused to give someone their rx of nitrate even though they were having a heart attack because he didn't like the look of the guy -- that would be negligent homocide. Not filling an emergency rx is not. As far as Plan B goes (which I personally have no problem with) it is my understanding that plan b is essentially four or five bc pills taken at once. As far as ru-486 goes -- that is a serious drug and procedure which requires the woman to be seen by the dr numerous times. One way or another your neighbor will have to get off work and bum some rides.
I don't think medical professionals give up their rights at all. That hasn't been what I'm saying. I've said over and over, I support the pharmacist's right in every event except when the patient doesn't have reasonable access to another pharmacist. I've stated that this would be an extremely rare circumstance. But I think this goes beyond birth control. If a pharmacist were a member of Fred Phelps church and was deeply, morally, sincerely opposed to homosexuality and refused to dispense HIV medicine, even though that pharmacist has no way of knowing how the patient contracted HIV, and there wasn't any other pharmacist in town and the patient didn't have a car or couldn't drive, do you think the pharmacist's right to exercise his moral convictions outweighs the HIV's patient's rights?
They hate liberty and people with differing view points. This type of group think unfortunately makes up modern liberalism and bears little to no resemblance to classical liberal philosophy.
<scoff>
Nobody "hates liberty" or "hates freedom." You watch too much tv.
So what? The point is - the pharmacy does not have to carry every med.
If the pharmacy that some woman goes to chooses not to carry the med she wants - so what? She can go to another pharmacy.
If the pharmacy does not want to carry a particular medication because of religious or ethical reasons - so what?
The consumer can take their business elsewhere
For crying out loud folks - this is not rocket science!
And I thought you were paying attention...
The pharmacy company carries the medication; the company wants to sell it.
The employee, whose job it is to read prescriptions and get meds off the shelf, is overstepping his/her authority within the company and is starting to make his/her own policy.
If the bosses, the ones who are actually supposed to be making policy and deciding which meds to sell, find out, they'll take action because they don't want to lose customers due to a "religious nutcase pharmacist".
Nobody "hates liberty" or "hates freedom." You watch too much tv.
I disagree. Alot of these neo liberals woud love nothing more but to take my guns, raise my taxes, steal from the poor to empower the bureaucrats, institute "fairness", outlaw my faith, tax my carbon footprint, and take my land.
I disagree. Alot of these neo liberals woud love nothing more but to steal from the poor to empower the bureaucrats.
Ummm what? I'll give you a mulligan for that one.
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.
