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.

 

Pharmacist mistakes abortion drug for antibiotic

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 




Killing what? All drugs can kill a human being in the right dosage. Methotrexate can and is used for a variety of things like Cancer, Autoimmune diseases, Behçet's disease etc... not just medical abortions. It kills certain cells involved with these diseases process,

To answer your question more directly, there are no drugs in a phamacy that have a sole purpose to kill a human being, though all drug in a pharmacy are capable of it.




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Highlander_
reply to post by backinblack
 




Killing what? All drugs can kill a human being in the right dosage. Methotrexate can and is used for a variety of things like Cancer, Autoimmune diseases, Behçet's disease etc... not just medical abortions. It kills certain cells involved with these diseases process,

To answer your question more directly, there are no drugs in a phamacy that have a sole purpose to kill a human being, though all drug in a pharmacy are capable of it.


I guess you'd need to define when do we become human..
Because abortion pills DO kill something....
And they are the ONLY drug I am aware of in a Pharmacy that are designed for that purpose...



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   
This sounds like a pharmacist who was "taking matters into her own hands" so-to-speak and is passing it off as a "mistake".



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Methotrexate, the drug that the pharamacist gave the girl by mistake, kills cells.


As the medication takes effect, Methotrexate interferes with folic acid and stops fetal cell duplication, and disrupts pregnancy at the stage of implantation in the uterine wall.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Malzypants
 


Where did you get that from?

There is nothing at all in the article to suggest the pharamacist was playing Dr Death.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


To clarify and answer your question again, they are designed to kill cells, and are part of a group of drugs called cytotoxics. All of which kill cells, most of which are in pharmacys.

There are plenty of drugs that kill cells.

You seem to think that methotrexate was designed to abort fetuses which is not the case, that is just a side effect of the drug that has a primary use and can be used for therapuetic abortions. Looking tinto the history of methotrexate we can see it was originally developed to treat cancer in children, not abortions.


edit on 11-2-2011 by _Highlander_ because: Sp.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Highlander_
reply to post by backinblack
 


Methotrexate, the drug that the pharamacist gave the girl by mistake, kills cells.


As the medication takes effect, Methotrexate interferes with folic acid and stops fetal cell duplication, and disrupts pregnancy at the stage of implantation in the uterine wall.








Mate, doctor it up all you like but there's still no denying it is a drug specifically designed to KILL a FETUS..

Now you can argue all day whether a Fetus is a human being or not,
but it;s hard to argue the fact that this drug has only one purpose and that's to abort a life....

Is there another drug dispensed in a Pharmacy with the same single aim??

Remember, the whole point of this line of questioning was that I said that before dispensing such a drug the pharmacist SHOULD have told the girl what it was for..
A reasonable scenario IMO...And the mistake would have been avoided...



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


It has several uses, and was not originally designed for abortions. Surley you can understand this?

Do you know anything about medicine at all?



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


He grabbed the wrong packet, and thusly he did not realise what he was giving the girl, did you not read your own posted article?



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Highlander_
reply to post by backinblack
 


It has several uses, and was not originally designed for abortions. Surley you can understand this?

Do you know anything about medicine at all?


Umm, surely you can understand that it WAS given to her with the FULL knowledge that it WAS an ABORTION DRUG..

Hell, I'm sure it had instructions and everything.!!!!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


lol...I give up, you win, the earth is flat and I'm a little teacup.

*toot



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Highlander_
reply to post by Malzypants
 


Where did you get that from?

There is nothing at all in the article to suggest the pharamacist was playing Dr Death.


The beauty of this situation is that no one would ever accuse or suggest that a professional would do something like this on purpose.

We don't know the background of the victim or her relationship to the pharmacist therefore how can we just assume it was a "mistake" just because the article doesn't suggest otherwise?

I think some people let their morals get the best of them and play God for others.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Malzypants
 


I would accuse a professional if I had suspicion that he or she was indeed dealing death, but there is no evidence of this in the article. I am aslo sure a lot of others would not be dumbstruck by the 'white coat' affect.

There has been indivduals that truley abuse their power in ways such as your are suggesting, but they are vary rare, just like other serial killers.

Look, the pharmacist may be a nut dealing wrong meds to patients because he thinks he is god, but it does not even hint at anything like that, you are pulling it out of your head, and statistically its the least likley explanation.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Highlander_
reply to post by backinblack
 


lol...I give up, you win, the earth is flat and I'm a little teacup.

*toot


Mate, you DID lose..

ALL I'm trying to get across is that certain drugs should NEVER be dispensed without the Pharmacist discussing them with the customer first..
That is LAW here in Australia with certain drugs..

I don't think for a second that this was a deliberate act but I also know the Pharmacist KNEW what drug he was giving..
His mistake must have been in reading the script..Not what drug he selected....
If the same LAWS were in place as are here in OZ then it would have been detected..



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Why the hell weren't there a set of steps to follow when prescribing, and handing out such medications, why the hell would the doctor prescribe one thing only for the pharmacist to give something else, are people so oblivious to the fact that you may be endangering someone else's life? There should be procedures in place to prevent this from even happening, if it was all processed by computer obviously there could have been some way of verifying which tablets were actually being handed over the counter. I really hope they put measures in place to keep things like this from happening.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles


To me, it seems as if you are blowing this off as if it is similar to a waitress adding sugar to the coffee that you ordered 'black."

This is a bit more than that. This is not a simple little error. This is a paid employee of a pharmacy. He/she has ONE thing to do. That would be to supply people with the medicines that they were prescribed. This is not a light situation. This is very serious for this girl and her baby. This one little tiny mistake, as you put it, may cause her child to die, or to be born with some sort of defects. I expect and hope that this person faces heavy penalties for this.

I may be being a bit paranoid, but could he (the pharmacist) have done this on purpose? He could have looked at her and thought "I don't approve of teenage mothers"...
Vicky



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 



I may be being a bit paranoid, but could he (the pharmacist) have done this on purpose? He could have looked at her and thought "I don't approve of teenage mothers"...
Vicky


I would hope not..The girl was 19, not really that young..
Also the drugs had a very similar name..
I think the Pharmicist merely read the hand written script wrong..

My only point is that it should be law, for safety, that the Pharmicist tells the customer what they are getting.
Especially with drugs such as this..



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Vicky32
 



I may be being a bit paranoid, but could he (the pharmacist) have done this on purpose? He could have looked at her and thought "I don't approve of teenage mothers"...
Vicky


I would hope not..The girl was 19, not really that young..
Also the drugs had a very similar name..
I think the Pharmicist merely read the hand written script wrong..

My only point is that it should be law, for safety, that the Pharmicist tells the customer what they are getting.
Especially with drugs such as this..


You're right... Here, in New Zealand pharmacists always do that... especially in hospitals (my son's a nurse), but also in shops. Also, doctors print prescriptions by their computers, at least mine does.
I hope the poor girl and her baby are lucky!
Vicky



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 



You're right... Here, in New Zealand pharmacists always do that... especially in hospitals (my son's a nurse), but also in shops. Also, doctors print prescriptions by their computers, at least mine does.
I hope the poor girl and her baby are lucky!
Vicky


Well here in Australia by law they have to do it with certain drugs, which is good..
And yes, our scripts are mostly printed also..

BTW, the girl only took one tablet before realising so will probably be OK..


Sad part is she was only 6 weeks pregnant..
That's a long uncertain wait..I feel for her..




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join