Posted on 08/09/2008 2:37:45 AM PDT by hocndoc
Birth Control Fears Addressed HHS Chief Says Draft Rule Is Not Redefining Abortion
Mike Leavitt blogged on the issue.
Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt has denied that a controversial draft regulation would redefine common birth control methods as abortion and protect the rights of doctors and other health-care workers who refuse to provide them.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
BTW, the majority of voters who hate killing *are* “the government.”
Good pharmacists are also a protection against good doctors, sometimes. Thank goodness, I’ve received a few of those “Are you sure about this”? phone calls.
Excellent response!
Few people understand that Pharmacists are Doctors of Pharmacy or “Pharm. D’s.”
If I want my pharmacist's opinion, I'll ask for it. He has neither discretion nor influence in my health care decisions - nor should he.
He is a pill-pusher, nothing more. His only job is to dispense as written unless there is obvious physician error.
I don't give a flying flip about his "religious objections." Do I have to abstain from pork just because my checkout clerk is Muslim?
Our “license” in Texas is now a “Physician permit.” I guess that’s more accurate, but good grief.
Humanae Vitae and True Sexual Freedom — Part 6 of 6 [Open]
Contraception v. Natural Family Planning — Part 5 of 6 [Open]
Sex Speaks: True and False Prophets — Part 4 of 6 [Open]
Contraception and the Language of the Body — Part 3 of 6 [Open]
Does Contraception Foster Love? — Part 2 of 6 [Open]
Contraception and Cultural Chaos — Part 1 of 6 [Open]
possibly in the future... you'll have to go to another clerk... i'm sure the Muslims will at least fight for that... they are fighting for everything else...
PHARMACIST CODE OF ETHICS
Pharmacists are health professionals who assist individuals inmaking the best use of medications. This Code, prepared and supported by pharmacists, is intended to state publicly theprinciples that form the fundamental basis of the roles and responsibilities of pharmacists. These principles, based on moralobligations and virtues, are established to guide pharmacists in relationships with patients, health professionals, and society.
I. A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.
Considering the patient-pharmacist relationship as a covenant means that a pharmacist has moral obligations in response to thegift of trust received from society. In return for this gift, a pharmacist promises to help individuals achieve optimum benefitfrom their medications, to be committed to their welfare, and to maintain their trust.
II. A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in acaring, compassionate, and confidential manner.
A pharmacist places concern for the well-being of the patient atthe center of professional practice. In doing so, a pharmacist considers needs stated by the patient as well as those defined byhealth science. A pharmacist is dedicated to protecting the dignity of the patient. With a caring attitude and a compassionate spirit,a pharmacist focuses on serving the patient in a private and confidential manner.
III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity ofeach patient.
A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination andrecognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacistcommunicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differencesamong patients.
IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity inprofessional relationships.
A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act withconviction of conscience. A pharmacist avoids discriminatorypractices, behavior or work conditions that impair professionaljudgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the bestinterests of patients.
V. A pharmacist maintains professionalcompetence.
A pharmacist has a duty to maintain knowledge and abilities asnew medications, devices, and technologies become available and ashealth information advances.
VI. A pharmacist respects the values and abilities ofcolleagues and other health professionals.
When appropriate, a pharmacist asks for the consultation ofcolleagues or other health professionals or refers the patient. Apharmacist acknowledges that colleagues and other healthprofessionals may differ in the beliefs and values they apply tothe care of the patient.
VII. A pharmacist serves individual, community, andsocietal needs.
The primary obligation of a pharmacist is to individualpatients. However, the obligations of a pharmacist may at timesextend beyond the individual to the community and society. In thesesituations, the pharmacist recognizes the responsibilities thataccompany these obligations and acts accordingly.
VIII. A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution ofhealth resources.
When health resources are allocated, a pharmacist is fair andequitable, balancing the needs of patients and society.
*adopted by the membership of the American Pharmacists Association October 27, 1994.
Oath of a Pharmacist
At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the professionof pharmacy.
I will consider the welfare of humanityand relief of human suffering my primary concerns.
I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve.
I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy. I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical and legal conduct.
I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of pharmacy that improves patient care.
I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.
mark
If the house painter's boss wants the contract and tells him to paint the house orange, he doesn't get to refuse and still keep his job. The government has no business interfering. Thus, this regulation should be rejected in its entirety.
Precisely. The Big Government regulation being proposed by the administration is exactly like the Muzzie cab drivers who wanted to pick and choose which fares they’d accept (no booze, no seeing-eye dogs, maybe no “infidels” period) while hogging the spot at the front of the line so another cabbie couldn’t serve the spurned passenger.
Nobody is making him do anything. He can dispense the medications offered by his place of employment, or he can find a new job. It's his choice.
Not if we draw the line and stop this crap now.
The administration is attempting to interfere with that, by having the government override the property rights of business owners.
exactly...
Contrast that with a restaurant. If I want to open a restaurant, I still need a license or permit from the Health Department, but where I am I can pay $100 for a one or two day food safety course, and go get my license. The government's interference in that field is very low. Therefore, they aren't doing those already in the industry any great favors by regulating newcomers out of the industry. Therefore, their right to interfere in my business (can I refuse to cook pork?) is very low. On the other extreme, look at my gas company. There is only one company running gas lines in the area, and they got a monopoly on gas infrastructure generations ago. The trade-off is that the government gets to set (or at least get the right to approve or disapprove) their rates. Used to be the same for telephone, electric and gas supply, and is even more true for cable companies.
In the medical profession, hospitals need a “certificate of need”, a determination by the State Health Department that your community needs more hospital beds. If the town doesn't need it, you can't build a hospital (same with nursing homes and even some clinics). If the government is preventing new hospitals from opening, then it gets to tell the existing hospitals that they need to treat everyone. For example, imagine there was no civil rights movement, there is one hospital in the county, and the population is such that the State won't approve another. Suppose that hospital is “whites only”. Does the State have a right, civil rights aside, to tell that hospital that they can't turn anyone away? Sure does, because there isn't another hospital, and the State has decided that there never will be another. The market isn't free, so the Government gets to regulate it.
Getting back to pharmacists, they don't get a monopoly, but there are extensive barriers to market entry and greatly limited competition. The government issued license to practice pharmacy lets the government meddle in your business. It's exactly the same as when you license a product or a technology for a patent holder. They get to set conditions on your use of the license they gave you.
In the case we are talking about, emergency contraceptives, there is a need to get the medication quickly. The medication is legal, the government’s decided that people should be able to buy it for it's intended purpose, therefore, the government should be able to take steps to make sure it's actually available, and I think they are giving such protections to the pharmacy industry as to justify that intrusion into the business or property rights of pharmacists.
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.