It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Idaho pharmacy board is OK with pharmacist who was OK with woman bleeding to death

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by BenIndaSun
I think choices should extend to health care providers as well, they should not be forced to do things they do not agree with.


Do you also agree Muslim cabbies have the right to refuse a rider because they have alcohol in their possession?

That is ridiculous. Pharmacists need to be required to fulfill any prescription written by a patients doctor. They are not in the position to refuse on personal belief.



Why shouldn't they be allowed to refuse a ride to someone with alcohol? It's their cab.

I support people's rights, including pharmacists and other health care workers. Obviously it's a risk and it costs them financially, and if they refuse enough prescriptions patients will stop going to them.

Either way, conscience clause is the law.




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
After reading a bunch of comments, I noticed that half didn't read the articles. I don't mean to be rude, but you all are making yourselves look really ignorant. The woman didn't die. The Planned Parenthood nurse called in a prescription for a woman that had an abortion, the pharmacist refused, the woman goes to another pharmacy, problem solved. That's how business operates. People don't have to patronize a certain place. The owners don't have to always allow certain people in. If the owners don't allow certain people in and they see a drop in their profit, they will either go out of business or change their policies. If an employee does something the owner doesn't like, the employee can be fired and the business could have legal issues to deal with.

Don't think me callous, I know firsthand how an abortion can affect someone. I have a close friend that accidentally got pregnant. When she found out she was shocked, then began to get excited about having a baby. After a couple months she got incredibly sick, and was hospitalized for a week due to intense dehydration and exhaustion along with a multitude of other symptoms. The doctors said because of a uterine condition she had combined with a very weak immune system and complications with the baby forming in the wrong place, she was putting her life at risk if she continued with the pregnancy. She made an incredibly hard choice and had an abortion that she did not want to have. I did the best I could to make her feel better emotionally, she was just really torn inside for months afterwards. Her abortion was a legitimate medical procedure, not a cop out on a responsibility that she would have have gladly accepted with open arms and all of the love a mother could give. That's why I am for abortion but only as a legitimate medical procedure.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayTee Her abortion was a legitimate medical procedure, not a cop out on a responsibility that she would have have gladly accepted with open arms and all of the love a mother could give. That's why I am for abortion but only as a legitimate medical procedure.

It does not stipulate if it was for medical reasons or otherwise. Are you suggesting that the chemist should have the right to know why she has an abortion? If she had to have a tube and fetus removed for an ectopic pregnancy should he be told? If she had a miscarriage and a currette should she have to tell him about the baby she is grieving over? What if he were raped and he'd be okay with abortion only then; should he have the right to know about that traumatic sexual violation which led to an unwanted pregnancy? If the fetus was grossly malformed and not viable.. should she have to go into explicit detail about how it was malformed? He was not prescribing an abortion pill he was prescribing something for bleeding so the "conscience clause" shouldn't apply. It's none of his business if she has an abortion or if she gave birth to a child or even if she has poblems with heavy periods (if applicable) because he was not provide that medical service/care. He could turn around and start denyng people post surgery anti-biotics using the same agument.

A woman should not be interrogated just to get script filled.

edit on 7-2-2011 by riley because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


You forget that a nurse from Planned Parenthood called in the prescription. Not a family practice or someone from a hospital but from a place that specializes in abortions and eugenics. Having actual hospitals and places that don't have an agenda call in the prescription then I'm willing to bet that problems like this wouldn't happen. Maybe this pharmacist is a conspiracy theorist like us and knows what Planned Parenthood truly is. I guess you didn't really read my first paragraph either. There are also plenty of other pharmacies to chose from. In my mediums sized town there are at least 20 pharmacies to choose from. There's the business pressures involved as well. I wouldn't be surprised if Walgreens gave the pharmacist some sort of disciplinary action since most corporations don't want any negative press or be viewed negatively. I also want to say that your view about rape is pretty messed up. Punish the child because of what the father did to the mother? I came within months of being aborted due to the repeal of a law that said parents could force their kids to have abortions, so my mom turned 18 in time. My grandparents hated my father and pressured my mother to have me aborted and was almost able to force her. My father should be in prison for at least 20 years for all of the things he did to my mother, even when she was pregnant with me. Through all of the things my father did to my mom, she loved me since day one despite all of the pressure and hate that surrounded her. Unless you've lived through it you have no ground to stand on. I will not back down because I've lived it.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayTee
I think the Idaho Board of Pharmacy did the right thing by not pursuing any action against the pharmacist. Not only that, it was also a hit at Planned Parenthood, which has it's roots in eugenics. People shouldn't be forced or coerced to do anything, especially if it goes against their conscience. Not only that, there's a pharmacy in every Wal Mart and grocery store. They aren't hard to come by.


Personnel businesses should be able to adopt their own policies but Walgreen's (and other pharmacist companies) should have the right to fire such an employee. Yeah sure abortion is immoral and I can see a pharmacist having a legitimate grievance at filling out plan B or something, but this is after the fact care.

That pharmacist is unqualified for the job and should be removed. The law's Idaho put into place to protect mini-nazi's is obscene and smacks of slavery for how it violates an employers right to conduct business.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"

I thought anyone working in the medical profession is suppose to uphold the oath in saving lives. The pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription (because the patient did something immoral) shouldn't prevent her from "saving another life", who could have been a victim of circumstances though no fault of her own.

Ugh! When I first read the OP post, the "OK" part didn't sit well with me. I cannot explain the feeling, seriously.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayTee
reply to post by riley
 

I also want to say that your view about rape is pretty messed up. Punish the child because of what the father did to the mother?

Punnishing a rape victim with a pregnancy resulting from rape is pretty messed up.
I have met rape victims who have fallen pregnant and they just want the result of the sperm that was forced inside them out of them. "He" remains inside them so long s a pregnancy doe so the rape is not over . You judge these rape victims as "punnishing" the fetus which in my opinion is heartless and completely disregards their trauma. If a rape victim wants to carry a pregnancy best of luck to her.. that would take alot of strength and I think she should be supported either way not condemned.

I came within months of being aborted due to the repeal of a law that said parents could force their kids to have abortions, so my mom turned 18 in time. My grandparents hated my father and pressured my mother to have me aborted and was almost able to force her. My father should be in prison for at least 20 years for all of the things he did to my mother, even when she was pregnant with me. Through all of the things my father did to my mom, she loved me since day one despite all of the pressure and hate that surrounded her. Unless you've lived through it you have no ground to stand on. I will not back down because I've lived it.

I am pro-choice. I do not believe a woman should be forced to abort or carry a pregnancy they do not want. I agree that your mother should not have been nerly forced.by her parents into having an abortion and I'm glad the law was changed. Forcing someone to have an abortion or have chid against their will is abusive and is taking away their free will.

Regardless he was not asked for an abortion pill so I do not see how the consience clause can really apply. As for the issue of rape and abortion.. I don't really want to debate it further as I've had this conversation a hunded times before.
edit on 7-2-2011 by riley because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by BenIndaSun
 


a pharmacist has on computer file all of the medications they have given you...THAT HAVE BEEN PRESCRIBED BY THE DOCTOR. the reason that its there on file isnt so they know what your medical condition is..(although they can sus that out by the medication they are giving you) for a pharmacist to ask the nurse what the pills are for in case she doesnt agree with why they are being prescribed is utter nonsense.

it is a pharmacist job to dispense the medication prescribed by the doctor the actual health proffesional.
it is not thier job to question why or what purpose the medication is being prescribed ...



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOnoworldorder
reply to post by BenIndaSun
 

it is a pharmacist job to dispense the medication prescribed by the doctor the actual health proffesional.
it is not thier job to question why or what purpose the medication is being prescribed ...


Pharmacists do need to know why and the purpose for which medications are prescribed. They are not technicians. Pharmaceutical care from a pharmacist involves more than getting the medicine to the patient.

Physicians spend less than 1 year studying medications. Doctor's of pharmacy study medications for 4 years. The opposite is true for diseases, but pharmacists need to know why, and sometimes question the use of a medication. The use cannot be assumed from the drug, up to 25% of drugs are used for off-label purposes.

Just as physicians and nurses have the right to decide if they want to partake in abortion; so do pharmacists.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

That is ridiculous. Pharmacists need to be required to fulfill any prescription written by a patients doctor. They are not in the position to refuse on personal belief.

I don't know what the law(s) on this are in America, but in Australia the pharmacist does a 4 year university course and can be prosecuted for correctly filling a harmful prescription.

During my first pregnancy, my mother, who had unsuccessfully tried to force an abortion on me, took me to her doctor for a check-up. He prescribed something "to make the pregnancy go more smoothly" and I took the prescription to the chemist. The chemist asked matter-of-factly if I was pregnant, and when I said yes, he wanted to know why I had not told the doctor. When I said I had, he was horrified, and explained this medication was very damaging to the fetus, and was likely to cause it to miscarry or be born deformed. He explained that the chemist in that case like this would be liable for damages.

Another time a new chemist refused a refill of a new diet drug a doctor has pushed me into taking, explaining both the old chemist and the doctor were now ill from taking this same drug, which turned out to be speed.

Yet another idiot G.P. diagnosed me with manic depression, despite me only being there for a thyroxine refill and mentioning any emotional problems. He boasted that I'd be amazed how many people he diagnosed with manic depression. This chemist was horrified to see both lithium and thyroxine on the one prescription. Apparently an under-active thyroid is a complete contraindication to taking lithium, which I didn't need anyway.


So a chemist can have good reason to ask the patient for a few details.


However for a chemist to refuse a legal non-harmful prescription, which in itself is not an abortificant, and which could be necessary to save a person's life, is unbelievable. At least, I don't believe it could happen in Australia, or in any other civilised country.


The funny thing is that this chemist most likely calls himself a Christian. But where would the Christian faith be if Jesus had up and said, "I'm not dying for you, you or you. You're all sinners. Hey God, get me out of here. There are no people here worth ministering to or dying for. They've all broken some rule or other!"?
When Jesus healed the blind man, did he quiz him first about whether his blindness had been caused by too much wanking?



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
If this is true, I want this pharmacist to bleed to death and to be there to laugh while it happens.

Can't handle the job? Do something else for a living, murdering scum. Walgreens just lost my business forever.



edit on 2/8/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Annee

That is ridiculous. Pharmacists need to be required to fulfill any prescription written by a patients doctor. They are not in the position to refuse on personal belief.

I don't know what the law(s) on this are in America, but in Australia the pharmacist does a 4 year university course and can be prosecuted for correctly filling a harmful prescription.



Thank you for your post.

I would really love to see proof of that law.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
In my experience - - - the pharmacist explains the medicine prescribed - - then require customer to sign that they understand. OR - - the customer (patient) can refuse explanation and is required to sign that they were offered explanation and declined.

In no way is it the responsibility of the pharmacist to make the decision whether you should have the medication or not.

It makes no sense for the pharmacist to override what a doctor prescribes.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

Actually, there have been issues with this for years...pharmacists refusing on "moral" grounds to fill scripts for everything from morning after pills, to birth control, to oxycontin, to other pain relieving narcotics.To my knowledge no one's ever refused to fill one for Viagra.

WalMart was at the center of this controversy for a long time, and finally simply refused to stock the morning after pill. I lost track of it after that. But various states have varying rules about it. I don't think any state would allow this though (if I remember correctly) to withhold a medication prescribed to prevent bleeding and possible death without an immediate and viable (for the patient) alternative being given.

Again, I say, if you and your "morality" can't handle all aspects of the job, find another job. I mean seriously? Can you imagine the job applications for these people? Which pharmaceuticals are you unwilling to prescribe? And then what? Employers who are bending over for these people are wimps. If it's legal, and a physician prescirbes it, shut up and fill it. If not find a job where someone will bend over for you but will also make the public fully aware. The time to find out that your pharmacist has a god complex is not when your standing there in pain or bleeding out.

Many will argue that employers like WalMart can make their own decisions. That's fine, but if that is the case, people should be made fully aware that they are not a full-service pharmacy.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Annee
 

Actually, there have been issues with this for years...pharmacists refusing on "moral" grounds to fill scripts for everything from morning after pills, to birth control, to oxycontin, to other pain relieving narcotics.To my knowledge no one's ever refused to fill one for Viagra.


I know Lucidity. And I know laws have been passed that pharmacists are required to fulfill prescriptions. I don't know if those are state laws or other.

If any pharmacist refused me medication on his/her Moral grounds - - - you better believe EVERYONE within earshot and beyond is going to hear about it.

There is ZERO way I would put up with that.

. . . . and of course - if men were the ones responsible for reproduction - - - all meds and needs would be Free and readily available.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Actually pharmacists have a duty to not fill any prescription that they think is suspect. Usually it applies to prescription fraud or addictive drugs, but they are certainly responsible for a lot more than "pill counting," and they could find themselves liable for filling an inappropriate prescription.

Also, the Board of Pharmacy is not in the business of making moral decisions, they simply decide if any laws or regulations were broken. If a pharmacist is empowered to refuse prescriptions, then no law was broken, and the Board was entirely correct in their finding.

Also, as RestinginPieces pointed out, nobody died, there were other pharmacies, so there really was no issue at all.

Also, the Planned Parenthood should be facing an investigation for not having the appropriate meds onsite for procedures they were performing. If they are not fully equipped for the procedure, then they should not be performing it. It isn't up to any pharmacist to bail them out of a botched procedure!



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Actually pharmacists have a duty to not fill any prescription that they think is suspect. Usually it applies to prescription fraud or addictive drugs, but they are certainly responsible for a lot more than "pill counting," and they could find themselves liable for filling an inappropriate prescription.

Also, the Board of Pharmacy is not in the business of making moral decisions, they simply decide if any laws or regulations were broken. If a pharmacist is empowered to refuse prescriptions, then no law was broken, and the Board was entirely correct in their finding.



Can you provide these regulations?

Is there any news report of a pharmacist being held responsible for fulfilling a legitimate prescription by a legitimate physician? I'm not talking about any scheme that pharmacist and doctor are in together.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 

Planned Parenthood is not required to have meds on hand in many places, in fact in many places they don't even "perform" procedures. And at issue here is not a "suspect" prescription but a judgmental prick.

And yet again, apparently these things vary from state to state, per their boards regulating this profession.
edit on 2/8/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Well, I can't read all the Statutes right this second, and I only know Florida laws, but this one sprang into my mind off-hand. The Source has all the pertinent statutes and rules regarding Pharmacists and Pharmacy technicians. There are also further ethical rules that I am not familiar with, and are not regulated by the state, but they are part of regular practice as a pharmacist.

Like I said before, the vast majority of the time, these statutes are intended to regulate over-prescription of addictive drugs, they aren't really intended for a case like the OP, but technically they still apply.

I would say (g) below would be pertinent in this case. Not that I necessarily agree, just that it applies.

Source

64B16-27.810 Prospective Drug Use Review.
(1) A pharmacist shall review the patient record and each new and refill prescription presented for dispensing in order to promote therapeutic appropriateness by identifying:
(a) Over-utilization or under-utilization;
(b) Therapeutic duplication;
(c) Drug-disease contraindications;
(d) Drug-drug interactions;
(e) Incorrect drug dosage or duration of drug treatment;
(f) Drug-allergy interactions;
(g) Clinical abuse/misuse.
(2) Upon recognizing any of the above, the pharmacist shall take appropriate steps to avoid or resolve the potential problems which shall, if necessary, include consultation with the prescriber.
Specific Authority 465.022, 465.0155 FS. Law Implemented 465.0155 FS. History–New 8-18-93, Formerly 21S-27.810, 61F10-27.810, 59X-27.810.




edit on 8-2-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Aaargh! I followed the backtrail and found the original article (I think)
Complaint: Pharmacist refuses to fill prescription over abortion concerns
NOWHERE does it say the patient had an abortion. Nowhere does it say the patient died. It doesn't even say the patient was bleeding to death.

And, in my opinion; if a pharmacist is uncomfortable filling certain prescriptions -be it an abortifacient or a pain reliever or a steroid or an antibiotic- then that pharmacist should quit and get a job that does not cause moral conflict.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join