Pharmacists 'denying birth control

Heh, I swear that if a pharmacist denied my girlfriend her meds, I would be slapping the teeth outta his/her mouth, and would gladly be arrested afterwards.

It's a job, not a place to display or enforce your meaningless beliefs upon others...

Originally posted by Thorfinn Skullsplitter
It's a job, not a place to display or enforce your meaningless beliefs upon others...

And where is the place to display or enforce our "meaningless" beliefs? Not saying birth control pills are bad news in my opinion (don't know enough about what they do to draw up an educated opinion), I'm just wondering when our "meaningless" beliefs get to be shared while other's meaningful(?) beliefs are not only protected but enforced in many jobs, government offices, and the like.

I suppose I should also follow this up by asking what constitutes a meaningful belief vs. these meaningless beliefs you mention (like saving lives, in the pharmicist's opinion).

Well is going to be a bill to protect the patient doctor treatments including the dispensing of prescription drugs and birth control.

So now it will be illegal for any pharmaceutical to denied prescription to a patient.

Is under "Moral and personal views should not get between the patient and its doctor" so the nonsense of "these" people about who they prescribe what will be against the law.

I am very happy with the new law when finally become in effect.

Junglejake while I understand your point of view meds are sold at chemists to cure people not kill them. (dont want another abortion debate !)
Considing the fact that there wont ever be a pill that kills an adult your argument isnt relvant for the lack of a better word.
If we go along with your argument then a city bus driver wont have to black passangers because its against his/her morals.

Originally posted by junglejake
I suppose I should also follow this up by asking what constitutes a meaningful belief vs. these meaningless beliefs you mention (like saving lives, in the pharmicist's opinion).

The issue isn't whether the beleifs are meaningful, its a question of legality. For a pharmacist to deny medication to someone based on anythign other than a medical beleif is flat out absurd.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by junglejake
I suppose I should also follow this up by asking what constitutes a meaningful belief vs. these meaningless beliefs you mention (like saving lives, in the pharmicist's opinion).

The issue isn't whether the beleifs are meaningful, its a question of legality. For a pharmacist to deny medication to someone based on anythign other than a medical beleif is flat out absurd.

I dont think you can consider birth control a medication.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by junglejake
I suppose I should also follow this up by asking what constitutes a meaningful belief vs. these meaningless beliefs you mention (like saving lives, in the pharmicist's opinion).

The issue isn't whether the beleifs are meaningful, its a question of legality. For a pharmacist to deny medication to someone based on anythign other than a medical beleif is flat out absurd.

I didn't start the meaningful/meaningless comment, I just questioned.

Are birth control pills a medication to make someone healthy?

Originally posted by Skibum

But it would be okay to force your "morals" on the pharmacist and make them do something they don't believe in.

I think you are missing the important thing here which is the hippocratic oath that this pharmacist is suppose to uphold. see #3 and #8 also please see medical ethics here Emphasis on the DIGNITY in the medical ethics.

She already was a single parent, and it turns out she wasn't pregnant in this case anyway.

Your comment is irrelevant. The fact that she thought she may have been pregnant shows that she was trying to look out for not only her best interest but for that of her pre-exsisting child. Raising a child is difficult in this day and age with two parents involved let alone her being a single mother.

No it reaffirms the freedom of someone to not do something they don't believe is right. Since a pharmacist is not part of the "state" they can allow religion to influence any decision they make if they chose. When you start telling people they have to do things that go against their religious beliefs then you are crossing the true meaning of the 1st amendment.

I don't see where it says free exercise except in certain cases.

This has nothing to do with the difference between religion and state but that of a medical professional and their patient. If the pharmacist has a problem with upholding his medical ethics and hippocratic oath then I suggest he find a different profession to be in. The difference here is the oath and the confidentiality that is suppose to come with the medical profession. The pharmacist has every right to express his grievances about her decision all he wants, but it DOES NOT give him the right to refuse her medical treatment. Make abortion illegal first then you can stand behind your religious propaganda all you want, but until then she has every right to ask for the pill and not be denied the treatment she requests from her pharmacist.

Originally posted by junglejake
I didn't start the meaningful/meaningless comment, I just questioned.

Are birth control pills a medication to make someone healthy?

Yes. In addition to preventing pregnancy, they are prescribed to regulate menstrual cycle in cases where women have irregular periods, for terrible cramping, for endometriosis (which can be quite painful), reduce the size of fibroid tumors, for acne due to hormonal fluctuations, and to help some women who get migraine headaches due to hormonal imbalances.

I'm sure there are other non-pregnancy related reasons why they are prescribed, but I can't think of them at the moment.

Hippocratic oath- you mean the one that in part says this....

"I will follow that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life."
www.greatpharmacyjobs.com...


Pretty clear where the pharmacist is correct by not dispensing the morning after pill. But thanks for helping me make my arguement. Now how exactly are they violating the oath again? Or do you just choose to overlook that part since you don't agree with it.




[edit on 19/4/05 by Skibum]

Originally posted by Croat56
I dont think you can consider birth control a medication.

It definitly is, heck it requires a perscription. Doesn't matter that its not treating a 'disease'. How many medications aren't necessary for health? Lots of 'em. Heck, plastic surgery isn't a health matter, but its still surgery. Pharmacies sell contraceptives. If this person isn't down with contraceptives, then the last place they should be at is a pharmacy.

lmgnyc
Yes. In addition to preventing pregnancy, they are prescribed to regulate menstrual cycle in cases where women have irregular periods, for terrible cramping, for endometriosis (which can be quite painful), reduce the size of fibroid tumors, for acne due to hormonal fluctuations, and to help some women who get migraine headaches due to hormonal imbalances.

Well, heck then there's that too apparently!

skibum
Now how exactly are they violating the oath again? Or do you just choose to overlook that part since you don't agree with it.

Interesting. When is that oath from? Is it one given now? Abortions are legal. Contraceptives are legal. This pharmacy sells contraceptives, its hypocritical for this person to even work there, but then not hand them out.

Originally posted by Skibum
Hippocratic oath- you mean the one that in part says this....

"I will follow that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life."
www.greatpharmacyjobs.com...


Pretty clear where the pharmacist is correct by not dispensing the morning after pill. But thanks for helping me make my arguement. Now how exactly are they violating the oath again? Or do you just choose to overlook that part since you don't agree with it.




[edit on 19/4/05 by Skibum]

No, I'm not validating your point, or giving it credibility either. I think perhaps you may be the one who is choosing specific passages. When a pharmacist chooses to refuse emergency contraceptives to someone, they are following their moral beliefs while plowing down the moral beliefs of both the doctor and the patient. Does this mean the pharmacist has the right to be my judge, jury, and executioner now? Does that mean the pharmacist has the right to deny you other medications because they don't see the need for you to take them? ex: asthma, Viagra, or psychological treatment drugs

You choose your own moral fibers, but they also need to coexsist with others whose fibers may not be identical to yours. What about the dignity and virtues of the patient? This should not give anyone a reason to deny a particular request. They may not like the person's decision, but they should respect it.

Something else that needs to be addressed here is this: The morning after pill is a super powerful birth control pill. It is imperative that the pill is taken sooner than later to ensure its effectiveness. Emergency contraceptives prevent ovulation. This means fertilization never occurs. Which guess what? That means that there was no conception, which means it is not an abortion. There is a big difference between the morning after pill and the drug RU-486 which is used as a chemical termination of early pregnancy. They are NOT the same thing.

As for the Hippocratic Oath: Has the constitution remained the same since our forefathers wrote it? No, of course not. Why is that? Would it be because society changes and advances, and laws as well as professional oaths must also change with the time in order for progress to be made. You can find a more extensive explanation by reading the Corpus Hippocratum. The Hippocratic Oath is a guideline for physicians, and if you do your research, you will find that the reason why the abortion portion was in the original Oath because Greek Physician's viewed the act of abortion as something that was left to the hands of midwives as were most practices involving birthing. The modern version of the Oath omits certain portions such as the prohibition of surgery, euthanasia, and abortion due to modern day medical ethics/ laws/ and technology, but it still maintains the main points of the original Oath and is the moral framework for standard medical ethics.

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by junglejake
I suppose I should also follow this up by asking what constitutes a meaningful belief vs. these meaningless beliefs you mention (like saving lives, in the pharmicist's opinion).

The issue isn't whether the beleifs are meaningful, its a question of legality. For a pharmacist to deny medication to someone based on anythign other than a medical beleif is flat out absurd.

I didn't start the meaningful/meaningless comment, I just questioned.

Are birth control pills a medication to make someone healthy?

Well I can vouch for the fact that birth control pills make me healthy. They have helped to even out my horomones which has helped to lessen my migraines as well as regulate my menstral cycle which was completely out of whack.