03-05-2014 12:37 PM
266 ... 23456 ...
tools
  1. Scott7217's Avatar
    Has anyone noticed that I am the only woman posting in this thread? Since this directly affects women, I find it interesting that only men thus far think it's OK to not dispense a legally prescribed medication because of someone's belief system. Interesting.
    I would encourage more women to voice their opinion in this thread, as it is an important issue that may not be known to everyone. For the record, I have said that I would support a pharmacist's decision to dispense birth control pills.
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-10-2014 04:23 PM
  2. anon8126715's Avatar
    I would encourage more women to voice their opinion in this thread, as it is an important issue that may not be known to everyone. For the record, I have said that I would support a pharmacist's decision to dispense birth control pills.
    My argument would be that it's NOT HIS decision to make. If the Pharmacy (at the ownership level) wants to stop selling birth control because they want to push their moral belief system onto their customers, then I just hope they make it widely known that they do in fact want to decide what is right and wrong (and lets hope they decide to go through ALL their inventory to decide what is right and wrong, bye junk food,sugary snacks and beverages) so I can take my business elsewhere.


    To those that think the pharmacist has a right to not sell birth control, what's your opinion if he denies someone the right to purchase Viagra or condoms? (oh and if you have a differing view, don't worry we won't think you too much a sexist).
    01-11-2014 05:25 PM
  3. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    Has anyone noticed that I am the only woman posting in this thread? Since this directly affects women, I find it interesting that only men thus far think it's OK to not dispense a legally prescribed medication because of someone's belief system. Interesting.
    Notwithstanding nolittdroid below, you will have to ask whatever women there are who are members here why they have chosen not to participate in this discussion. Don't go trying to blame this on us guys, most of whom if you've actually taken the time to read this thread think the idea of discriminating based on gender is complete and utter bullcrap.

    In fact, why don't you go ask your fellow woman-kind why there isn't any real solidarity out there IRL when it comes to a lot of different issues? Why do they vote for politicians who act against their own interests ("women's bodies can fight off legitimate rape", "women should be legally compelled to take their husband's last name") or why women cannot become ministers in RC churches and other denominations, etc. and so forth because, honestly, any group which just rolls over and doesn't fight for their rights as a practical matter at some point has themselves to blame for their situation as much as those who may have initially put them there.

    MEN gave women the right to vote (not trying to argue that this was bad or anything) so obviously not all men thought suffrage was bad. Then again, why didn't women physically force the issue and be willing to risk and resist arrest to make it happen sooner? Hmm?

    Backing you up! Men have NO idea.
    In large part, you're right. But please, don't go painting all of us with the same brush. A *man* started this thread (evidently). Men have been the ones mostly contributing to it. The consensus of opinion here, by MEN tyvm, is that the majority think refusing to e.g. fill birth control prescriptions is WRONG. I'd even argue that examples of how issues of license terms violation could be skirted have been posited (by a MAN) to demonstrate that bad stuff can still be gotten away with.
    01-14-2014 12:44 PM
  4. msndrstood's Avatar
    Notwithstanding nolittdroid below, you will have to ask whatever women there are who are members here why they have chosen not to participate in this discussion. Don't go trying to blame this on us guys, most of whom if you've actually taken the time to read this thread think the idea of discriminating based on gender is complete and utter bullcrap.

    In fact, why don't you go ask your fellow woman-kind why there isn't any real solidarity out there IRL when it comes to a lot of different issues? Why do they vote for politicians who act against their own interests ("women's bodies can fight off legitimate rape", "women should be legally compelled to take their husband's last name") or why women cannot become ministers in RC churches and other denominations, etc. and so forth because, honestly, any group which just rolls over and doesn't fight for their rights as a practical matter at some point has themselves to blame for their situation as much as those who may have initially put them there.

    MEN gave women the right to vote (not trying to argue that this was bad or anything) so obviously not all men thought suffrage was bad. Then again, why didn't women physically force the issue and be willing to risk and resist arrest to make it happen sooner? Hmm?


    In large part, you're right. But please, don't go painting all of us with the same brush. A *man* started this thread (evidently). Men have been the ones mostly contributing to it. The consensus of opinion here, by MEN tyvm, is that the majority think refusing to e.g. fill birth control prescriptions is WRONG. I'd even argue that examples of how issues of license terms violation could be skirted have been posited (by a MAN) to demonstrate that bad stuff can still be gotten away with.
    Touchy aren't we?

    I was pointing out that I was the only woman posting in this thread, and pointing out that the people on this thread that did say it was fine for a licensed pharmacist to refuse to fill a legally prescribed medication were all men. Sorry if you took offense to that point, I was pointing out a fact, don't get your boxers in a bunch.

    It must by that Y chromosome, geesh. :rolleyes:

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    nolittdroid likes this.
    01-14-2014 01:37 PM
  5. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    Touchy aren't we?
    I'm simply defending the truth. If men were picking on women, I wouldn't hesitate going after them, either. (And neither should you.)

    And to set the record straight... to all of you, my fellow men, who think that it's actually a GOOD or acceptable thing to deny birth control materials to women, y'all are IDIOTS and seriously need to wake up and join the rest of us who are not living in the Dark Ages.

    I was pointing out that I was the only woman posting in this thread, and pointing out that the people on this thread that did say it was fine for a licensed pharmacist to refuse to fill a legally prescribed medication were all men.
    The thread was started by a MAN trying to point out an example of stupidity in action. Most people posting here that it was a bad idea were MEN. Some of the men posting here are idiots. Maybe it would make more sense to just call out the idiots directly? Dunno, just thinking out-loud, as it were.
    01-14-2014 01:55 PM
  6. msndrstood's Avatar
    I'm simply defending the truth. If men were picking on women, I wouldn't hesitate going after them, either. (And neither should you.)

    And to set the record straight... to all of you, my fellow men, who think that it's actually a GOOD or acceptable thing to deny birth control materials to women, y'all are IDIOTS and seriously need to wake up and join the rest of us who are not living in the Dark Ages.


    The thread was started by a MAN trying to point out an example of stupidity in action. Most people posting here that it was a bad idea were MEN. Some of the men posting here are idiots. Maybe it would make more sense to just call out the idiots directly? Dunno, just thinking out-loud, as it were.
    Thank you for clarifying your point. πŸ‘πŸ˜Š



    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    01-14-2014 02:00 PM
  7. llamabreath's Avatar
    I'm all for calling out idiots directly.




    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    01-14-2014 06:15 PM
  8. Scott7217's Avatar
    Proving mental state (i.e. intention) is a hard threshold to meet.
    This is true. For example, let's say my pharmacist says that she is out of stock of a particular drug. She could be lying, or she could be telling the truth. I have no way to tell, and I can't simply walk into the back of the pharmacy to check the shelves in person. How should I report this? Do I simply call the state board of pharmacy and just tell them that I suspect that my pharmacist is holding out on me?
    01-16-2014 05:00 AM
  9. jdbii's Avatar
    This is true. For example, let's say my pharmacist says that she is out of stock of a particular drug. She could be lying, or she could be telling the truth. I have no way to tell, and I can't simply walk into the back of the pharmacy to check the shelves in person. How should I report this? Do I simply call the state board of pharmacy and just tell them that I suspect that my pharmacist is holding out on me?
    That would be one option. Your state's Attorney General's office is another. If you suspected a violation of Federal Law then the regional US Attorney's office is another, though I'm just guessing on that. You could always ask your primary care doctor what to do if you are comfortable doing so, and then there would be women's advocacy organizations that you could turn to like a local women's health clinics or national telephone hotline. The problem with all of those options is that they might not work in the moment for the 18 year old woman, (or 25 year old, or 35 year old), whose feels alone, afraid, frantic, and may have limited options like if she lived in a small town or didn't have a car.
    01-16-2014 11:27 AM
  10. SteveISU's Avatar
    This is true. For example, let's say my pharmacist says that she is out of stock of a particular drug. She could be lying, or she could be telling the truth. I have no way to tell, and I can't simply walk into the back of the pharmacy to check the shelves in person. How should I report this? Do I simply call the state board of pharmacy and just tell them that I suspect that my pharmacist is holding out on me?
    They can usually order whatever drug it is and have it there within 48hr.
    01-16-2014 11:39 AM
  11. SteveISU's Avatar
    Are there legal ways to limit the dispensing of birth control pills? For example, could a pharmacy simply charge more for the pills, thus encouraging customers to go to another pharmacy?

    Could the pharmacy stock only enough pills for one person? Once those pills are sold out, there would be no more pills to dispense for anyone else at that moment.

    On top of that, could the pharmacy take their time in reordering a new supply? If the pharmacy decides to only restock birth control pills once a quarter (i.e. every 3 months), then that particular pharmacy could only dispense enough pills to cover 4 customers per year.

    Customers who need the pills in any of these situations could simply go to another pharmacy without any issue. Would you agree?

    They can't limit BC pills, Narcotics is another story. I have a friend who I know is addicted to prescription pills and he had a pharmacy refuse to fill Adderall and OxyCodone together. He's been on both for 2yr and is in denial. When you're dealing with Narcotics (Oxy), the DEA gets heavily involved and then the PharmD's license is at stake if you have an ***** doctor who just writes for anything.
    01-16-2014 11:50 AM
  12. Scott7217's Avatar
    They can usually order whatever drug it is and have it there within 48hr.
    This might be a possible solution. If the drug will arrive in 48 hours, the pharmacy has enough time to ensure that a second pharmacist with no objections can be on duty to dispense it. This allows the customer to receive the drug, and the first pharmacist does not have to violate his or her conscience.
    01-16-2014 08:23 PM
  13. jdbii's Avatar
    This might be a possible solution. If the drug will arrive in 48 hours, the pharmacy has enough time to ensure that a second pharmacist with no objections can be on duty to dispense it. This allows the customer to receive the drug, and the first pharmacist does not have to violate his or her conscience.
    Edit: Removed my post.

    Apologies Scott7217, I think that was rude of me to make the crass joke in direct response to your post.
    01-16-2014 08:40 PM
  14. Scott7217's Avatar
    Edit: Removed my post.

    Apologies Scott7217, I think that was rude of me to make the crass joke in direct response to your post.
    No worries! I do sympathize with your viewpoint. For example, in the future, people may have replicators in their homes. The doctor can simply email the prescription to someone's home, and the replicators will synthesize whatever drug you need, all without anyone leaving their home. I think people will like that, but replicators able to make complex drug molecules are still a long way off.

    Going back to my previous post, if a second pharmacist dispenses the drug without any objection (thus sparing the first pharmacist from doing it), would that be a possible (if imperfect) solution?
    jdbii likes this.
    01-16-2014 10:17 PM
  15. msndrstood's Avatar
    No worries! I do sympathize with your viewpoint. For example, in the future, people may have replicators in their homes. The doctor can simply email the prescription to someone's home, and the replicators will synthesize whatever drug you need, all without anyone leaving their home. I think people will like that, but replicators able to make complex drug molecules are still a long way off.

    Going back to my previous post, if a second pharmacist dispenses the drug without any objection (thus sparing the first pharmacist from doing it), would that be a possible (if imperfect) solution?
    That's is something the pharmacy should work out on its own without the patient ever having to deal with someone else's crisis of conscience. Just my opinion. As a nurse, I was never allowed and would never consider not taking care of a patient for any reason. That's why they call us health care professionals.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    01-16-2014 10:52 PM
  16. SteveISU's Avatar
    This might be a possible solution. If the drug will arrive in 48 hours, the pharmacy has enough time to ensure that a second pharmacist with no objections can be on duty to dispense it. This allows the customer to receive the drug, and the first pharmacist does not have to violate his or her conscience.
    I would much rather go the route of having that Pharmacist stick his conscience up his ***.

    My wife was on BC pills for 10yrs and never had a period (on purpose, her doctor had her skip the 7 non-hormone pills). She was diagnosed with endometriosis at 19, had one ovary torn to shreds (you'd never think that side would ever produce an egg if you watched the surgery) due to cysts. Her OB/GYN didn't want her to have a period until she was ready to have kids. She risked never being able to have children. She wasn't taking BC to prevent pregnancy, she was taking it so that one day we COULD start a family.
    msndrstood and nolittdroid like this.
    01-17-2014 09:40 AM
  17. Timelessblur's Avatar
    That's is something the pharmacy should work out on its own without the patient ever having to deal with someone else's crisis of conscience. Just my opinion. As a nurse, I was never allowed and would never consider not taking care of a patient for any reason. That's why they call us health care professionals.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    The bold part is why the law is crap.

    Sorry but the entire law is just the crazy right wing forcing their beliefs onto others. Simple as that.
    nolittdroid likes this.
    01-17-2014 01:22 PM
  18. msndrstood's Avatar
    The bold part is why the law is crap.

    Sorry but the entire law is just the crazy right wing forcing their beliefs onto others. Simple as that.
    ad nauseum...

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    01-17-2014 01:26 PM
  19. SteveISU's Avatar
    The bold part is why the law is crap.

    Sorry but the entire law is just the crazy right wing forcing their beliefs onto others. Simple as that.
    In fairness, they are healthcare professionals too who have a license to uphold. They aren't mindless idiots who count pills all day. Often times they are the safety net for doctors who prescribe medications without being aware of potential interactions. I don't know how many times patients come in without a complete list of all their current meds and you prescribe something as simple as a antibiotic and that antibiotic has been known to cause and increased QT interval.

    They have a job to also protect, but this goes beyond that and is out of their scope.
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-17-2014 02:10 PM
  20. Scott7217's Avatar
    That's why they call us health care professionals.
    Exactly. They are professionals with a conscience. They are not mindless robots who follow orders without question.
    01-17-2014 02:28 PM
  21. llamabreath's Avatar
    ... crazy right wing forcing their beliefs onto others...

    The crazy left wing would never do such a thing.




    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    01-17-2014 02:29 PM
  22. msndrstood's Avatar
    Exactly. They are professionals with a conscience. They are not mindless robots who follow orders without question.
    Then they should go to work at a Catholic hospital and they will have a clear conscience then the public pharmacy patients can get the Rx their doctor prescribed for them using his professional judgement. Simple solution.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    01-17-2014 02:45 PM
  23. msndrstood's Avatar
    In fairness, they are healthcare professionals too who have a license to uphold. They aren't mindless idiots who count pills all day. Often times they are the safety net for doctors who prescribe medications without being aware of potential interactions. I don't know how many times patients come in without a complete list of all their current meds and you prescribe something as simple as a antibiotic and that antibiotic has been known to cause and increased QT interval.

    They have a job to also protect, but this goes beyond that and is out of their scope.
    So true. As a nurse, I've caught many doctor errors. Double security...

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    01-17-2014 02:47 PM
  24. Scott7217's Avatar
    Then they should go to work at a Catholic hospital and they will have a clear conscience then the public pharmacy patients can get the Rx their doctor prescribed for them using his professional judgement. Simple solution.
    I would agree. The other alternative would be to work at a drug store more in line with their beliefs.

    'Pro-Life' Drugstores Market Beliefs - The Washington Post

    I didn't know this was a thing, and personally, I am troubled by it. However, it doesn't appear to be illegal to open a drug store that doesn't sell contraceptives at all. They appear to be getting popular in some parts of the country.

    On a related note, the article lists other health care professionals that deal with conscience issues. From the same article:

    "The pharmacies are emerging at a time when a variety of health-care workers are refusing to perform medical procedures they find objectionable. Fertility doctors have refused to inseminate gay women. Ambulance drivers have refused to transport patients for abortions. Anesthesiologists have refused to assist in sterilizations."
    01-17-2014 03:10 PM
  25. llamabreath's Avatar
    I would agree. The other alternative would be to work at a drug store more in line with their beliefs.

    'Pro-Life' Drugstores Market Beliefs - The Washington Post

    I didn't know this was a thing, and personally, I am troubled by it. However, it doesn't appear to be illegal to open a drug store that doesn't sell contraceptives at all. They appear to be getting popular in some parts of the country.

    On a related note, the article lists other health care professionals that deal with conscience issues. From the same article:

    "The pharmacies are emerging at a time when a variety of health-care workers are refusing to perform medical procedures they find objectionable. Fertility doctors have refused to inseminate gay women. Ambulance drivers have refused to transport patients for abortions. Anesthesiologists have refused to assist in sterilizations."
    I want to know where all these suddenly conscience *professionals* were in all the other generations leading up to today.




    >>> Sent from Hotlanta
    01-17-2014 03:14 PM
266 ... 23456 ...

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