03-05-2014 12:37 PM
266 ... 678910 ...
tools
  1. toober's Avatar
    I call the law unconstitutional because it forces religious beliefs onto others.
    If you have problems giving out the drugs then you need to find a new career.
    Maybe you should reread the Constitution. I can find nowhere in the document that promises freedom FROM religion. What we are promised is freedom OF religion. Meaning that I may practice my religion in the way that i see fit and the government cannot make a law that prevents it. If that means you don't like the way I run my business, you are free to find somewhere else to take your money.
    01-27-2014 07:30 PM
  2. nolittdroid's Avatar
    So, when it comes to birth control, we have looked at the following situations so far:

    1. Both female and male physicians can prescribe birth control pills.

    2. Both female and male judges can preside over court cases involving birth control issues.

    3. Both female and male jurors can deliberate in court cases that deal with birth control issues, and their jury votes are equal.

    Therefore, should we accept or reject the notion that men have no business in issues related to birth control?
    So based on this, a pharmacist reserves the right to assume an impotent man who needs Cialis is using the medicine to sleep around? Because obviously, if I can vote and serve on a jury I am within my rights?

    ✌SG3/iPad2
    01-28-2014 04:53 AM
  3. nolittdroid's Avatar
    Does it happen globally or only on a number of countries?
    My research shows that it is a US only clause, unless similar laws are enacted under a different name... which makes sense because only in the US will the religious right cry about birth control during a recession.

    ✌SG3/iPad2
    01-28-2014 07:45 AM
  4. Scott7217's Avatar
    Any adult gets to make their own decisions about their health regardless of gender.
    However, I think we need to make a distinction between the autonomy of the patients versus the autonomy of the health care providers (e.g. pharmacists, doctors, etc.). They are not mutually exclusive. For example, let's say there is a pharmacy that has two pharmacists on duty at the same time. A patient brings a prescription, and the first pharmacist has a moral objection to filling it, but the second pharmacist does not. In most cases, the second pharmacist would fill the prescription, thus acknowledging the first pharmacist's moral objection while also taking care of the needs of the patient. Would you agree that this would be an acceptable solution?
    01-29-2014 11:38 AM
  5. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    Hey Scott7217...

    However, I think we need to make a distinction between the autonomy of the patients versus the autonomy of the health care providers (e.g. pharmacists, doctors, etc.). They are not mutually exclusive.
    This is actually an intellectually disingenuous argument. And, by that, I'm referring to the argument itself, not you personally or what you said.

    The reason I classify this as being I.D. is that it seeks to treat the symptoms instead of dealing with the root cause.

    We live in a reality in which our species has free will, and also is put together such that nobody is alike, and no two people are going to perfectly agree with one another about everything. That being said, we also live in a reality in which, as much as individual liberty and freedom of choice are critical, liberty and freedom of choice are by definition limited. Ideally, they should only be limited through pure balance. That is, you have the absolute right to do anything you want up to the point where it impacts me; and at that point your rights stop absolutely.

    Of course we know it doesn't actually work this way because our society (others' societies as well, but the scope here is the U.S.) places through law other arbitrary limitations on our individual rights. Example: in most states, if I want to smoke pot and were to do so in a way in which that action and everything associated with that action was contained and kept from impacting anyone else, it is still illegal and therefore out of bounds.

    Anyhow, I am a huge fan of the Founding Fathers and their overall-libertarian philosophy under-girding the construction of our Constitution and governmental structure and heirarchy. However, what we also know is that there has to be some degree of standardization applied because otherwise you get this hodge-podge of approaches which frequently leads to legal inequality and ambiguity. As an example, if you have two gay members of the same sex who get married in one state that recognizes gay marriage, but then they go to another state which doesn't, are they married or are they not? Are they lawful citizens or are they law breakers?

    What if the states objected to the founding of the FCC? Or the FAA? Or the NIST? Or ANSI? Can you imagine a situation where there were FIFTY DIFFERENT STANDARDS for the construction, maintenance, and operation of aircraft? What about FIFTY DIFFERENT STANDARDS for units of time? I could go on all day long about this, but I trust you get the point I'm making.

    For example, let's say there is a pharmacy that has two pharmacists on duty at the same time. A patient brings a prescription, and the first pharmacist has a moral objection to filling it, but the second pharmacist does not. In most cases, the second pharmacist would fill the prescription, thus acknowledging the first pharmacist's moral objection while also taking care of the needs of the patient.
    Even if this isn't the thought on the mind of the second pharmacist, you do realize they are essentially undermining the first pharmacist's ethical and moral standards, right? And you also realize this makes a mine field out of the process of getting prescriptions, right?

    While I think this sort of thing needs to be addressed, one thing I recognize, as someone who is spiritual, is that this is really the end product of the radicalization of Christianity in America, and that is yet another problem which needs to be addressed. However, that's a subject for a different discussion.
    nolittdroid and Scott7217 like this.
    01-29-2014 02:00 PM
  6. jdbii's Avatar
    They are not mutually exclusive.
    Why not? Patients are free to do whatever they want so long as it isn't criminal. Heath care providers, like any job out there, have a set a standards they must abide by. There are exceptions like you could be quarantined or committed to a psych ward, but I would regard a patient's and health care provider's autonomy as mutually exclusive. Just because the policy connects them doesn't mean they both get the same deferential treatment. Do I have that mixed up in some way?

    As to whether or not I agree would depend whether or not it is legal. So if I was on jury, or sitting on a licensing disciplinary panel, I would vote in accordance with whatever the statute or licensing rule stated. Keep in mind you presented a hypothetical where the patient had a reasonable alternative. If the patient had no alternative and no access then I'd probably vote otherwise.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    01-29-2014 02:46 PM
  7. Scott7217's Avatar
    So based on this, a pharmacist reserves the right to assume an impotent man who needs Cialis is using the medicine to sleep around? Because obviously, if I can vote and serve on a jury I am within my rights?
    Yes, pharmacists can refuse Cialis prescriptions under the conscience clause. In fact, I believe some pharmacists have done exactly that ever since the drug came on the market in 2003. As for your question about the jury, yes, if you are on a jury on a case involving Cialis (or any drug, for that matter), you are within your rights to vote on the outcome. (In fact, you would be required to vote in order to serve your term as a juror.) So, for example, if it were a case involving covering Cialis under an insurance policy, you can vote to deny coverage for Cialis.
    01-29-2014 03:07 PM
  8. Scott7217's Avatar
    Actually, I haven't bought a prescription drug in about 4 years.
    That's quite an achievement! It means that you are taking good care of your health. That being said, do you have family members, relatives, friends, or coworkers who shop at CVS, Rite-Aid, Walgreens, or Walmart? They may be financially supporting companies that have conscience clauses.
    01-29-2014 03:14 PM
  9. anon8126715's Avatar
    That's quite an achievement! It means that you are taking good care of your health. That being said, do you have family members, relatives, friends, or coworkers who shop at CVS, Rite-Aid, Walgreens, or Walmart? They may be financially supporting companies that have conscience clauses.
    I'll probably talk to them about the conscience clause, but I'd be a hypocrite if I insist that they stop supporting those companies. I'd rather this pharmacist inform the person and let the person make their OWN GROWN UP decision about taking the birth control. Funny thing is I remember reading that about 57% or so of women that take birth control take it because it helps alleviate PMS symptoms, not because they're out 'sinning'. I figure if enough women put this guy in his place when he tries to preach his BS, he'll get the hint.


    I'll never understand how religious fanatics want to impose their morality on other people. I probably have the same moral code (in most instances maybe even better than many since I have never used an illegal drug, have never been drunk past a little buzzed, have never told a woman what I thought she wanted to hear to get her into bed---honesty is surprisingly effective) as some of these religious fanatics. The biggest difference is I don't think anyone should be subject to my moral code. If someone is near starvation and they have an opportunity to steal some food, would I chastise them for stealing food? If a would-be mother wants to terminate her early term baby because her father raped her, who am I to tell her to carry the baby to term, and when the child asks about how he/she came into this world, expect the mother to tell the child all the horrific details because lying is also against my moral code?

    To me, Roe vs Wade means people making their own adult decisions about their lives, not government, nor the old busy body evil church lady down the street telling me what my morality should be. These people that want to clamp down on individual responsibilities think they're doing good, but they're just killing liberty, IMO.
    01-29-2014 10:38 PM
  10. Scott7217's Avatar
    Does it happen globally or only on a number of countries?
    I'm not sure if US-style conscience clauses are present in other countries, though I can look up a specific country if you have one in mind. I think a lot of countries probably just completely ban entire classes of drugs (like morning-after pills), so the United States looks a lot more open, relatively speaking, even with the conscience clauses in place.
    01-30-2014 01:04 AM
  11. Scott7217's Avatar
    We live in a reality in which our species has free will, and also is put together such that nobody is alike, and no two people are going to perfectly agree with one another about everything.
    You make excellent points, Tall Mike 2145! I'll see if I can address them.

    Like you said, no two people are going to perfectly agree with one another about everything. Conscience clauses are an attempt to have things both ways. It is an imperfect solution, but from what I've been reading, it's been pretty effective.

    Most customers that have been affected by a conscience clause don't even realize it. They simply go home with their medication (e.g. birth control pills), unaware that a controversy existed in the first place. This is why the courts, the major health organizations (like the American Pharmacists Association), and the major drug store chains have embraced conscience clauses.

    I previously brought up that the law in Maine seemed to be on the books since 1973, so conscience clauses have been around for more than 40 years. (Plus there may be a state with an older law on the books. It's just hard for me to track down all these laws.) You would think that if people had a problem with them, they would have enacted more legislation to repeal them by now. However, they haven't, and challenging the law now may be harder (but not impossible) because of recent court decisions.
    01-30-2014 01:40 AM
  12. Scott7217's Avatar
    Example: in most states, if I want to smoke pot and were to do so in a way in which that action and everything associated with that action was contained and kept from impacting anyone else, it is still illegal and therefore out of bounds.
    If you want to get really technical, I believe marijuana is still illegal under federal law, so even if you were in a state that allowed marijuana use, it would still be illegal. The current administration just chooses not to enforce the federal law in most cases, so that's why you have people using marijuana relatively openly without being arrested. I would expect additional court cases related to drug use to go before the supreme court in the near future.
    01-30-2014 01:46 AM
  13. Scott7217's Avatar
    As an example, if you have two gay members of the same sex who get married in one state that recognizes gay marriage, but then they go to another state which doesn't, are they married or are they not? Are they lawful citizens or are they law breakers?
    That's a tough one, but the way I see it, it's both. Gay marriage would be recognized in the first state, but it's not in the second state. Whether they are lawful or not is up for dispute. A lot of things depend on what the second state is. For example, Missouri allows gay couples married in other states to file joint tax returns. So it's not like Missouri allows gay marriage, but it is giving one tangible benefit that would have been denied previously.

    Missouri governor allows same-sex couples to file joint tax returns - The Washington Post

    On a slightly different note, I wonder how Christians view Hindu marriages for straight (heterosexual) couples. Hinduism is a polytheistic religion, and polytheism is against Christian teachings. If a Hindu couple gets married, does the Church not recognize the marriage? Do we have politicians proposing laws to ban Hindu marriages? I haven't heard of any, but that's just my observation.
    01-30-2014 02:11 AM
  14. Scott7217's Avatar
    Can you imagine a situation where there were FIFTY DIFFERENT STANDARDS for the construction, maintenance, and operation of aircraft? What about FIFTY DIFFERENT STANDARDS for units of time? I could go on all day long about this, but I trust you get the point I'm making.
    I can imagine at least 55 standards related to pharmacy. They are:
    - Federal law (includes ATF, DEA, FDA, etc.)
    - 50 state boards of pharmacy
    - District of Columbia board of pharmacy
    - Guam board of pharmacy
    - Puerto Rico board of pharmacy
    - Virgin Islands board of pharmacy

    For the most part, we seem to be doing fine.
    01-30-2014 02:29 AM
  15. Scott7217's Avatar
    Even if this isn't the thought on the mind of the second pharmacist, you do realize they are essentially undermining the first pharmacist's ethical and moral standards, right?
    Shh! Not so loud! The first pharmacist might hear you!

    Seriously, though, the situation I described illustrates the limit of the conscience clause. The first pharmacist cannot block the second pharmacist. The first pharmacist can only refuse to fill the prescription, but must allow the second pharmacist to do it. This is why conscience clauses are an imperfect solution for an imperfect world.

    Honestly, I prefer internet-connected replicators that can make any drug your doctor prescribes in the comfort of your own home, but technology has not gotten that far yet.
    01-30-2014 02:54 AM
  16. Scott7217's Avatar
    Why not? Patients are free to do whatever they want so long as it isn't criminal. Heath care providers, like any job out there, have a set a standards they must abide by. There are exceptions like you could be quarantined or committed to a psych ward, but I would regard a patient's and health care provider's autonomy as mutually exclusive. Just because the policy connects them doesn't mean they both get the same deferential treatment. Do I have that mixed up in some way?
    A mutually exclusive situation would mean that the following two could not occur at the same time in the scenario I presented:

    1. The patient walks out of the pharmacy with the medication.
    2. The first pharmacist objects to the prescription and does not fill it.

    In my previous post, I mentioned a second pharmacist who has no objection to filling the prescription. That fixes the problem, so the scenario is not a mutually exclusive one. The patient walks out of the pharmacy with the medication, and the first pharmacist did nothing to fill it. Both the patient and the health care provider maintain their autonomy.
    jdbii likes this.
    02-14-2014 09:31 AM
  17. Timelessblur's Avatar
    A mutually exclusive situation would mean that the following two could not occur at the same time in the scenario I presented:

    1. The patient walks out of the pharmacy with the medication.
    2. The first pharmacist objects to the prescription and does not fill it.

    In my previous post, I mentioned a second pharmacist who has no objection to filling the prescription. That fixes the problem, so the scenario is not a mutually exclusive one. The patient walks out of the pharmacy with the medication, and the first pharmacist did nothing to fill it. Both the patient and the health care provider maintain their autonomy.
    For that to work it would require the pharmacy to have 2 pharmacist on staff and WORKING at the same time. In that case it would be fine if their is another pharmacist working at the same time. Otherwise you have an issue. The patient should not have to walk or go to a different pharmacy.
    If you make that a requirement I can bet money that a lot of pharmacy would enact policy that say you are not allowed to object because they do not want to pay 2 pharmacist.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    02-14-2014 12:39 PM
  18. jdbii's Avatar
    A mutually exclusive situation would mean that the following two could not occur at the same time in the scenario I presented:
    Yeah, I had that mixed up. Logic is a discipline that has always confounded me. I get confused even with the basics. Now I wonder how many hundreds of times I've said something is mutually exclusive without realizing I was using it out of context.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    02-14-2014 01:06 PM
  19. Scott7217's Avatar
    The patient should not have to walk or go to a different pharmacy.
    Patients go to different pharmacies all the time. Some reasons include:

    1. The drug may be out of stock, but it is available at a different location.

    2. The price may be too high, and the patient can get a better deal somewhere else.

    3. The patient wants a brand-name drug, but only the generic is available at a particular pharmacy.

    Going to a different pharmacy may be the best solution for the patient.
    02-14-2014 05:11 PM
  20. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Patients go to different pharmacies all the time. Some reasons include:

    1. The drug may be out of stock, but it is available at a different location.

    2. The price may be too high, and the patient can get a better deal somewhere else.

    3. The patient wants a brand-name drug, but only the generic is available at a particular pharmacy.

    Going to a different pharmacy may be the best solution for the patient.
    What about only pharmacy with in 20 miles.

    Of those cases

    1 and 3 can be addressed with the drug can be ordered and easily over nighted. Price is generally going to be competitive but not a valid argument.

    But those are business problems. Not a BS of forcing your religious beliefs on others. I would even add if their is a drug a pharmacy. Refusing to give the drug on religious grounds is like refusing to serve black people for that bs reasons. We both know that the black people one would never fly. They would be sued into the ground for good reason.
    msndrstood and Scott7217 like this.
    02-14-2014 06:55 PM
  21. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I get that getting on your face and darning you to heck with the threat of a spoon if you don't believe as they do is pushing religious beliefs on you. Anyone else notice how this situation is a debate on how inaction is considered pushing religious beliefs on you too?

    I guess darned if you do, darned if you don't.
    02-14-2014 07:21 PM
  22. anon8126715's Avatar
    I get that getting on your face and darning you to heck with the threat of a spoon if you don't believe as they do is pushing religious beliefs on you. Anyone else notice how this situation is a debate on how inaction is considered pushing religious beliefs on you too?

    I guess darned if you do, darned if you don't.

    Would you have the same opinion of the parent that doesn't get treatment for their dying child because it's against their religion?
    02-14-2014 07:43 PM
  23. Mooncatt's Avatar
    If the child is of the same belief, then so be it. If the child wants to denounce the religion or never considered his/herself of said religion in the first place, they should be allowed treatment regardless of the parent's choice. Parents have say over a minor's medical choices, but I don't believe it should be absolute.

    In those cases, the child should be assigned a guardian of sorts to oversee the treatment. There could be questions that come up on how to treat an illness and the best path to take that a kid simply isn't mentally capable of handling. For that, they needed someone on their side willing to work on their behalf.
    02-14-2014 08:18 PM
  24. toober's Avatar
    To me, the whole discussion is very simple. If I own the business, I will sell what I want to who I want for whatever reason I want. If the business is owned by someone else, I sell what they want to who they want, for whatever reason. If this causes anyone any problems, they are free to shop elsewhere or even open a competing business. If the government thinks they can change this, I would then close my doors and sell nothing.
    02-14-2014 08:24 PM
  25. _Zguy__'s Avatar
    I think the problem that could come from this is defeated by the fact most people who are pharmacists are too intelligent and educated to have a moral objection to normal medicine
    oz123 and Scott7217 like this.
    02-15-2014 12:28 PM
266 ... 678910 ...

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