03-05-2014 12:37 PM
266 ... 91011
tools
  1. Scott7217's Avatar
    Religions is a bs argument. If your religion does not let you do it then you need to find a new job.
    If you ever read the Illinois case on conscience clauses, you will find testimony that is very similar to your comments. From Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Quinn:

    "If a pharmacy wants to be in the business of dispensing contraceptives, then it must fill prescriptions without making moral judgments."

    "... pharmacists unwilling to dispense emergency contraception should find a new job."

    The court sided with the pharmacists on the basis of the conscience clause and the First Amendment. The pharmacists do not have to dispense contraceptives.
    02-25-2014 06:18 PM
  2. The Hustleman's Avatar
    If you ever read the Illinois case on conscience clauses, you will find testimony that is very similar to your comments. From Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Quinn:

    "If a pharmacy wants to be in the business of dispensing contraceptives, then it must fill prescriptions without making moral judgments."

    "... pharmacists unwilling to dispense emergency contraception should find a new job."

    The court sided with the pharmacists on the basis of the conscience clause and the First Amendment. The pharmacists do not have to dispense contraceptives.
    In such a case you don't make them and reward them with your business, you take your money elsewhere

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    02-25-2014 06:42 PM
  3. Scott7217's Avatar
    I still can't tell if you're for or against it though. I would hope no one is really for it as it is a slippery slope. It opens up a lot more problems than it solves.
    Well, let's say a new contraceptive came out on the market that only prevents pregnancies arising from female embryos. Male embryos would be unaffected. The drug achieves this effect by blocking sperm carrying the X chromosome. Sperm carrying the Y chromosome can go on to fertilize an ovum.

    Who would be interested in such a drug? Probably people who value boys over girls. We can see this behavior in cultures around the world, especially in some parts of Asia and the Middle East. Some people think having a daughter is a burden.

    I would object to this type of contraceptive. I believe that the sex of the embryo is irrelevant. I only care that the resulting baby is healthy and happy. Raising a girl, in my opinion, can be just as rewarding as raising a boy. If I were in the pharmacist's shoes, I'd probably have someone else fill the prescription or have the customer get the drug from a different store.

    On the flip side, I would have no problem with contraceptives that prevented all pregnancies (arising from both male and female embryos).
    02-25-2014 07:27 PM
  4. anon8126715's Avatar
    Well, let's say a new contraceptive came out on the market that only prevents pregnancies arising from female embryos. Male embryos would be unaffected. The drug achieves this effect by blocking sperm carrying the X chromosome. Sperm carrying the Y chromosome can go on to fertilize an ovum.

    Who would be interested in such a drug? Probably people who value boys over girls. We can see this behavior in cultures around the world, especially in some parts of Asia and the Middle East. Some people think having a daughter is a burden.

    I would object to this type of contraceptive. I believe that the sex of the embryo is irrelevant. I only care that the resulting baby is healthy and happy. Raising a girl, in my opinion, can be just as rewarding as raising a boy. If I were in the pharmacist's shoes, I'd probably have someone else fill the prescription or have the customer get the drug from a different store.

    On the flip side, I would have no problem with contraceptives that prevented all pregnancies (arising from both male and female embryos).
    And this is why I don't like the idea of morality being legislated. Lets compare it with freedom of speech. Initially it starts with censoring what everyone agrees should be censored. After awhile, we slowly move towards censoring other things. Eventually, our freedom of speech is a footnote of history. Groups like the KKK, and other hate groups that practice their hate speech on a regular basis, everything their organizations stand for is offensive, but I would have no problem defending their right to that speech.
    02-25-2014 09:22 PM
  5. Scott7217's Avatar
    So depending on company policy and other laws, the conscience clause may not even need to come into play in this specific case.
    I'm inclined to side with jdbii and you in that the conscience clause may not even apply in the case with Phillip Hall. I believe that if Hall is telling the truth when he says that the shipment of Plan B was mislabeled, it would be illegal for anyone to sell it. Drugs must be labeled properly for sale. Mislabeled drugs violate both federal and state law. The proper course of action would be for Walgreens to reject the shipment, return it to the manufacturer, and get a shipment that is properly labeled.

    Now, let's say Phillip Hall alerted management, but they told him to sell the mislabeled Plan B anyway. Hall would be in a tough spot. Basically, management would be telling him to commit a crime. If he didn't comply with management, he could lose his job. If Hall sold even a single box of mislabeled Plan B, the board of pharmacy could fine him and revoke his license. Given those choices, it may be worth taking the risk of losing his job over losing his license. It might be easier to get a new job than to get back your pharmacy license.

    In fact, you could probably make the argument that Hall did Walgreens a favor. He removed a mislabeled product from the shelves. This protects Walgreens from legal action from the board of pharmacy. Taking that into consideration, it doesn't make sense to fire an employee that saved the company from a potential lawsuit.
    02-25-2014 11:35 PM
  6. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I believe that if Hall is telling the truth when he says that the shipment of Plan B was mislabeled, it would be illegal for anyone to sell it. Drugs must be labeled properly for sale. Mislabeled drugs violate both federal and state law.
    You're correct, but I think that would apply only in the identification, directions, side effects, and other such information about the dug. In the post about this, the mislabeling was only for the over/behind the counter status. That wouldn't affect the drug's usage and safety, so that shouldn't have been relevant to whether or not it was legal to sell in the first place. Plus, some over the counter drugs are kept behind the counter anyway. You don't need a prescription, but some pharmacies do so because they may want to council you on usage, protect from theft, over use, etc.
    02-26-2014 09:48 AM
  7. Scott7217's Avatar
    In the post about this, the mislabeling was only for the over/behind the counter status. That wouldn't affect the drug's usage and safety, so that shouldn't have been relevant to whether or not it was legal to sell in the first place.
    This is an issue that will probably be brought up during the trial. We have a vague idea, but we don't know the exact labeling on the boxes. It's possible they were labeled improperly, and Phillip Hall did the right thing. On the other hand, maybe Hall just made up that story to give him an excuse to throw out the entire shipment because he objects to anyone buying Plan B.

    Honestly, if he wanted to subvert the system, he could have asked his friends to buy the entire stock. Afterwards, he could reimburse his friends, collect the drugs, and throw them away somewhere else. I don't know if there's anything anyone could do to prevent that scenario from happening.
    02-27-2014 04:17 AM
  8. Scott7217's Avatar
    Lets compare it with freedom of speech. Initially it starts with censoring what everyone agrees should be censored. After awhile, we slowly move towards censoring other things. Eventually, our freedom of speech is a footnote of history.
    I can see your point. You may not like what people are saying, but you will defend their right to say it. Likewise, you may not like pharmacists who follow the conscience clause, but you will defend their right to follow it. Would that be true?
    02-27-2014 04:25 AM
  9. anon8126715's Avatar
    I can see your point. You may not like what people are saying, but you will defend their right to say it. Likewise, you may not like pharmacists who follow the conscience clause, but you will defend their right to follow it. Would that be true?
    Freedom of speech >< Freedom to withhold prescription drugs. For me it would be more like defending the right of a pharmacy owner to fire someone that isn't performing their duty because they are claiming a moral high ground. Your freedom to practice your religion is your given right until your right imposes on my rights. I'm not sure why anyone thinks a pill counter should have laws built around them. If a pharmacist doesn't think they can perform their duty because of some moral issue, then the answer is simple FIND ANOTHER JOB. It's just like the McDonalds example I cited, if an employee decides they want to become a Hindu and decides to stop selling "hamburgers", should we shelter that employee? No, we'll simply tell that employee to find another job, maybe with chik-fil-a.

    I knew one guy that was a pill counter that thought his job was so special, so I can see why some people in the industry would think that they deserve special treatment, they think they're doing something noble. This guy was a ****** canoe and I can understand their mindset, but ultimately, they're doing a job that a well trained monkey could probably do as well.
    02-27-2014 05:31 AM
  10. Scott7217's Avatar
    I knew one guy that was a pill counter that thought his job was so special, so I can see why some people in the industry would think that they deserve special treatment, they think they're doing something noble.
    I know, right?! It's 2014. Why don't we have drug ATMs now? Why can't I simply insert my prescription into a machine, swipe my credit card, and get the medication that my doctor prescribed to me? There would be no hassle, no drama, and best of all, no judgment! Wouldn't you agree?
    02-27-2014 06:53 AM
  11. Aquila's Avatar
    I know, right?! It's 2014. Why don't we have drug ATMs now? Why can't I simply insert my prescription into a machine, swipe my credit card, and get the medication that my doctor prescribed to me? There would be no hassle, no drama, and best of all, no judgment! Wouldn't you agree?
    I am a big fan of the automation of useless tasks.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    02-27-2014 06:56 AM
  12. Scott7217's Avatar
    I am a big fan of the automation of useless tasks.
    When you think about it, it's like a slap in the face of pharmacists who follow the conscience clause. A drug ATM totally undermines their authority. It goes along rather nicely with the things we can already do (e.g. go to a different store, use a mail order pharmacy, etc.). That's just the start.

    I can tell my alumni association to withhold donations to colleges that give degrees to pharmacists. I can tell my board of pharmacy to withhold licenses. Pharmacists can't work without a degree and a license.

    I can organize a boycott of a pharmacy. I could also tell managers of mutual funds to sell off pharmacy stocks. Without customers or investor funding, pharmacies will go out of business.

    I can petition any elected official to change the law. If I have to, I can go all the way to the president.

    The beautiful thing is that pharmacists are completely powerless to stop me in any of these endeavors. I would advise people to at least consider my suggestions. You don't have to do everything, but even one item off the list would be helpful. If we pitch in together, we can turn this ship around.
    02-27-2014 03:25 PM
  13. anon8126715's Avatar
    I know, right?! It's 2014. Why don't we have drug ATMs now? Why can't I simply insert my prescription into a machine, swipe my credit card, and get the medication that my doctor prescribed to me? There would be no hassle, no drama, and best of all, no judgment! Wouldn't you agree?

    I'm guessing that you're trying to bait me. But what the hell, I'll bite. If the logistics can be delivered correctly and you're not cross-contaminating someone's medicine then I don't see why we can't automate the process. There's a lot of human error already involved, why not remove the human element to avoid human mistakes?
    02-28-2014 12:56 AM
  14. Scott7217's Avatar
    If the logistics can be delivered correctly and you're not cross-contaminating someone's medicine then I don't see why we can't automate the process. There's a lot of human error already involved, why not remove the human element to avoid human mistakes?
    That sounds good to me. While we don't have to agree on everything, it's good to know that there are things where we can reach an agreement.
    03-04-2014 07:52 PM
  15. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    Right, so this thread is about done. How about we talk about something far more useful, like bacon, beer, or even chocolate?
    03-05-2014 12:01 PM
  16. Scott7217's Avatar
    How about we talk about something far more useful, like bacon, beer, or even chocolate?
    You can discuss bacon, beer, and chocolate in this thread I posted in the Entertainment section:

    Bacon, Beer, and Chocolate
    03-05-2014 12:37 PM
266 ... 91011

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-16-2013, 09:01 AM
  2. [APP][2.1+] Christmas Cake Recipes App (Santa Clause Approved!)
    By saroyama in forum Android App Inventor
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-05-2013, 08:16 AM
  3. The 'Water Damage' Warranty Weasel Clause
    By BrockN in forum HTC One M7
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-14-2013, 11:24 PM
  4. SOLD.......with a guilty conscience.
    By corvette72778 in forum HTC EVO 4G LTE
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-18-2013, 12:33 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD