Posted on 11/09/2004 8:23:53 AM PST by Michael Goldsberry
Edited on 11/09/2004 8:39:31 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The Pharmacist's ONLY RESPONSIBILITY is to ACCURATELY FILL that "Doctor's Prescription." If the "Pharmacist" decides NOT to fill a Legitimate Prescription from a Duly Licenced Physicion, THAT Pharmacist is "Functioning as" an "Unlicensed Physician"---Making Medical Decisions WITHOUT the "Credentials" to Do So!!"
While the "Pharmacists" believe that they are "Avoiding Liability," they FAIL to see the "Down Side!!"
IF a Patient is DENIED a Medication DULY Prescribed by a Licensed Physician, by a Timid Pharmacist, & ANY "untoward Effect" occurs for Lack of that Prescribed Medication, the PHARMACIST is 100% LIABLE for the Event!!
SOMEHOW, the "Pharmacists" believe that if they REFUSED to dispense a Legally Prescribed Medicatiom, they are NOT LIABLE for the "Outcome!!"
WRONG!!
If I--as a Licensed Physician--Write for a Medication that a Patient Needs (Phenobarbital for an Epileptic) that a "Pharmacist" doesn't "Approve of,"--& refuses to "Fill;"--the PHARMACIST becomes "Liable" for the "Outcome!"
Despite "PC," there is a REASON that Physicians spend THREE TIMES as long in School as "Pharmacists!"
Americans are NOT YET STUPID;--We're NOT YET ready to let the "Inmates Run the Asylum!!"
Pharmacists are NOT YET trained to "Second-guess" physicians!!
When the "Pharmacists" are ready to "Take On" my Physician Responsibilities & Care for my Patients, I'll GLADLY "Step Down," & let the "Druggists" "Have a Go at It!!"
ONLY,--WHO will THEY "Blame" when "Things Don't work out??"
You can be SURE that I--as a 'Doc--Won't be on the side of the "Defense" when your "Local Pharmacist" mistakes a "Headache" for a Brain Tumor!!
The Pharmacists SURE WANT the "AUTHORITY;"--are they Willing to take the RESPONSIBILITY??
Doc
It was a general comment, go read all the posts since this troll began posting here recently. And don't look at the sign up date, it's an old trick. They sign up for scores of names and let them age. Then comes the liberal DU talking points. This person is all over the site advocating abortion. Even partial delivery murder.
Correct, and I have stated that repeatedly on this thread.
Birth control pills?
Now if it had been over abortion pills that'd be a different story.
According to many posting there isn't any difference. Any embryo or egg tampering is killing an unborn life. Once you have sex it's a contract of pregnancy, no matter what. Everybody, whether the subscribe to this view or not must adhere to it. The thing I don't get is we've been arguing over when life begins, or personhood for eons.
The Supreme Court said in Roe v. Wade if the greatest philosophical and theological minds can't agree, darned if we're going to decide. But nevertheless Christians are going to force fetuses as people on everyone else and attempt to codify it. I say if you don't want to have an abortion because you feel life starts at conception, fine. Don't have the abortion. Don't use the birth control pill. But why are you trying to keep me from the abortion or the pill? I'm not forcing you to abort. Let everyone choose according to their conscious, because unlike capital murder, there is no universal agreement that not allowing embryos to develop or using birth control is murder.
Sorry, I've had a long day and couldn't quite understand your post.
Are you saying birth control pills = abortion ?
Me too. For all the good it'll do.
=0)
I guess then real republicans should applaud insubordination and refusal to do ones job and the theft of anothers property.
Reread what I have written. I support the pharmacists right to hold the position and values he does. I do NOT support a pharmacist who refuses to do their job. As I have said several times, the pharmacist can quit, negotiate with the employer that they will not fill such prescriptions, or start their own pharmacy.
Being "amazed to no end how many people out there think that every woman who takes birth control pills is taking them just so she can go f*#@ the football team" is not the comment of a misogynist.
Your reply to Monamars in post #171, to wit, "Every? No. 99.999%, yes." is misogynist.
Me? I simply commented on it.
Simply commented? Saying you believe 99,999 out every 100,000 women taking birth control are doing so just so they can do the football team is simply commenting? It's an inflammatory statement I doubt you have the balls to repeat.
So get off my case.
So long as "your case" includes mouthy misogynisms, count on me to be on it.
So what you're saying is that in Texas, the government compels people to do things that they object to morally.
Boy, that sure sounds like the government trying to "force its own morality down the throats" of its subjects.
I wonder if the ACLU knows about this serious breech of the separation between Church and state.
Fixed it.
Certain professions, such as medicine and the law, come with a certain set of rules that members of said professions have to adhere to. As a lawyer, I have a whole canon I have to follow in my practice. These rules even extend to my conduct in the non-lawyer aspects of my life.
Anyone going into these professions knows the rules ahead of time. It would be a little dishonest of someone to become a pharmacist, knowing full well what the rules were in Texas, and then complain that he is bound by those rules.
Well, that's easy - I was probably just wrong about that part. ;-)
Forcing "morality" down the throats of its subjects is not OK.
You need to get with the "New America" program.
Yes, there's probably some technical way to prosecute this guy - larceny by trick, embezzlement, something. Of course, then he's going to raise technical arguments about the value of this piece of paper and it just seems like it all somehow misses most of the important values and issues at stake.
Maybe the licensing board is the best route.
BTW, I found the business of the founder of terrorism on your profile page fascinating. I never knew anything of that person who I have since looked up.
Well, there were lots of terrorists both before her and many since, but she did help to write a fascinating little chapter in history. I think the remote time and setting and even the fact that she was a woman helps us to see her a bit differently than her contemporaries did. ;-)
"Anyone going into these professions knows the rules ahead of time. It would be a little dishonest of someone to become a pharmacist, knowing full well what the rules were in Texas, and then complain that he is bound by those rules."
I think I understand about some of the rules that the professions are bound by. I know, for instance, that my legal friends all have certificates attesting to their admissions to the Bar hanging on the walls of their offices. I have even, on occassion, been listed as a reference by someone applying for entry to the bar.
And I am also pretty sure that physicians must adhere to a set of rules that govern their professional behavior.
But surely the professional involved (whether doctor, lawyer, or even a pharmacist) has some discretion in the cases he or she can accept.
Is it really the case that if I came to you requesting your legal services that the rules would require you to take my case? Would you not be able to tell me that you are refusing to take my case?
Or in the case of a physician, surely s/he must have the discretion (except, perhaps, in emergency situations) to refuse to take my case -- espcecially if I am asking the doctor to do something that violates her own moral code.
Am I missing something here?
Generally speaking, yes. Unless I turned you down for reasons that were unethical, such as race.
However, there are cases where you are basically required to take a case. For example, a Judge can assign you to be the defense attorney where the accused is indigent and you can only be excused from such duty in limited circumtances.
For pharmacists, it's really an issue to be decided by the relevant state licensing authority or legislature. Some states do not allow pharmacists to opt out of filling a script on moral grounds.
With the arrival of FDA approved online pharmacies there is no issue here.
Just as a pharmacist does not have to dispense for assisted suicide or executions, there should be no issue with this since there is competition and alternatives.
Besides this is a VOLUNTARY medication for RECREATION.
If that's the way you choose to look at it, yes.
Poor Pitifulricus... I guess you couldn't deal w/ it.
Contrarily to you, I have other things except religious fanatics that tries to impose their wills on all and sunder to do...
The good thing of course is that all you can do is bemoan... It won't prevent one abortion or one woman taking the morning after pill, or the pill in general...
This is what is good!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.