Posted on 04/01/2005 4:38:31 PM PST by traderrob6
They suceeded with Mayor Bloomberg. He made it law that med students in NYC a are required to learn abortion. 1 in 7 doctors go to med school in NYC. And they schools are so influential, other medical schools instituted it. Mayor Bloomber save abortion.
Guees that means if you own a pharmacy you must sell what the government tells you too.
__________________________________________________________
Of course, that is what the pharmacy business is all about. The government restrict the sale of certain products. A pharmcy is given government leave to sell SOME of those products if a government licensed MD says so. Other of these products are restricted further and can not be sold EVEN NO MATTER WHAT THE VOTERS SAY sometimes. The government also has public accomidations laws that say if you sell to one person, you must sell to all which would mean in the pharmacy business would mean all with a prescription.
If one does not want government mucking in their business, pharmacy is the wrong business to be in. It is all about making money on government intervention.
They are targeting abortifacients.
He must be Catholic then.
Disgusting.
Correct, and that whole 'right to privacy' thing was a hoax all along.
Which operations do you mean? Blood transfusions and transplants? If he does't believe in performing such operations perhaps he shouldn't be a surgeon. The government has a certain amount of leeway to regulate medicine and medical pratictioners. What if your pharmacist refuses to fill your prescription and you live 200 miles away from the next pharmicist? What if a pharmicist doesn't believe in prescription mood inhancers? Or anti-biotics--what if he's a homeopath? I see no reason why the government should not recquire pharmacists to fill out all legal prescriptions brought to them (if they practically can of course). If someone doesn't believe in birth control, I recommend fighting to illegalize it. But as long as it's legal, and can be prescribed by doctors, pharmacists--as members of the medical community--should be recquired to fill those prescriptions out.
Everything is regulated. Does a vegan store have to serve meat? Does a kosher store have to serve pork? The have health regulations. Just because the state regulates something to death doesn't mean they should be able to force you to do things that are against your moral beliefs.
We are talking about RU-486 here folks. This drug kills over 50% of the people who receive this drug. This is not a "lifestyle drug."
It's a pretty large jump from birth control pills to Nazi experiments in concentration camps. If you think birth control is immoral why not fight to illegalize it all together?
So basically if you find birthcontrol pills objectionable you either a) can't be a pharmacist or
b) no one at all can have bcp?
I wonder if the state will assume liability for any lawsuits that arise from this dictate?
I was responding to the poster who referrenced a story about a pharmacist refusing to fill the prescription and also refusing to transfer it to another pharmacy.
There is no conscience clause in Illinois?
Everything is regulated. Does a vegan store have to serve meat?
____________________________________________________
The difference is that these other example don't only sell controlled products. A pharmacy sells controlled substances.
The "just follow orders" crowd is in full effect. If you have a job with some responsibility or some government regulation (every job), then you'd better check your humanity and beliefs at the door. It's beyond people that they could go elsewhere.
BTW, this article refers to the government mandating that pharmacist do this. We are not talking about a pharmacist being fired by a private employer.
A medical professional with a post-graduate degree, not simply a pill-counter.
His profession is licensed and regulated by the government. Therefore, the government does have certain control over him, as it does over doctors. I think pharmacists should be obligated to fill prescriptions given by licensed doctors.
And if the doctor prescribes the wrong drug? It happens. That's one reason for their post-grad education and licensure; to ensure that a patient does not get a drug that is harmful to him. Pharmacists must have the freedom to make those decisions. If they dispense the wrong drug and a patient is harmed, they can be liable.
If they don't want to maybe they shouldn't be in that profession.
Should every professional who disagrees with a widespread practice quit their profession? That sounds dangerous to me. Many disastrous decisions have been exposed by objectors to the status quo. Also, contraceptive prescriptions are proabably such a small percentage of the average pharmacist's business that it is not something for which one should have to consider another line of work.
If you disagree with doctor-prescribed birth control pills than fight for their illegalization.
That would be a futile fight right now, but anyone is free to do so. Getting rid of the pharmacists who have this moral objection is not the answer.
Your sacred all-powerful-government-that-must-be-obeyed argument has no bearing on moral people. And people of deep religious faith should not be banned from certain jobs, as you demand.
Your sacred all-powerful-government-that-must-be-obeyed argument has no bearing on moral people. And people of deep religious faith should not be banned from certain jobs, as you demand.
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.