tinpot county judges can ignore a Congressional subpoena and federal courts can ignore federal law.....so why can't pharmacists as a matter of conscience ignore some jackass governor ?
Posted on 04/12/2005 7:41:07 AM PDT by marshmallow
Key words.
Being able to euphemisitically refer to the elimination of an unborn child as "health care" has been key to the success of the culture of death.
Those who dissent will be deprived of their livelihood.
--any other issue aside, I believe the power of governors to issue "executive orders"-other than if martial law has already been declared--should be eliminated--period.
How 'bout the pharmacies not wishing to dispense these drugs simply have the courtesy to advertise themselves as such. No govt regs needed.
Whatever biz they lose in birth control, they'll make up for by attracting folks to whom that would appeal.
Good!
You are a pharmacist, not the local preacher. Your job is to dispense medicines as prescribed by a doctor. Don't like it? Find a new line of work.
tinpot county judges can ignore a Congressional subpoena and federal courts can ignore federal law.....so why can't pharmacists as a matter of conscience ignore some jackass governor ?
Sure. Lets have any pharmacist dispence meds only if he "feels" they are the "correct type". You hoof down to the pharmacy on a doctors orders and it would be a hit or miss if you got your meds.
Not the world I want to live in.
We let kosher delis sell only kosher food...we let Ford dealers only sell Ford cars...we let every kind of retailer under the sun choose what and what not to sell, based on all kinds of criteria including conscience.
Even doctors have the freedom to decide which surgical procedures they will and won't do, based on conscience. Why must we bind the hands of pharmacists?
If pharmacist A won't dispense a certain drug and pharmacist B will, then pharmacist A has ceded part of the drug market to pharmacist B. If there's enough demand for the drug, pharmacist A will have significantly hurt his or her business over it, and pharmacist B will get a significant boost. If the drug in question is so heinous that neither pharmacist will dispense it, then somewhere there is a pharmacist C who will be more than happy to. There's no reason not to let the free market sort this out.
Governor "Count Chocula" is a liberal ass. Someone tell him the bowl haircut went out after Captain Kangaroo died.
"Your job is to dispense medicines as prescribed by a doctor."
This is not a pharmacist's job.
A pharmacist always has the discretion not to dispense a drug.
Doctor's only get a fraction of the pharmacology in medical school that pharmacists get in pharmacy school and often prescribe the wrong drug or drugs which could lead to deadly interactions.
My wife is a pharmacist and has caught many errors that could have killed patients.
You wouldn't want your Viagra interacting with your heart medication would you?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
You are a pharmacist, not the local preacher. Your job is to dispense medicines as prescribed by a doctor. Don't like it? Find a new line of work.
Since when is a Governor's order tantamount to a Doctor's Prescription?
And you are a customer, not an enforcer of government morality.
Unless I'm a "preacher", I must ignore my conscience and perform my work in a moral vacuum?
No.
Your job is to dispense medicines as prescribed by a doctor.
Ordinarily, yes. Unless I believe the doctor has erred. In which case I won't. If I believe that the dose he's prescribed might kill you-or somebody else- then I won't fill it.
Don't like it? Find a new line of work.
Don't like my business or the service I provide? Find another one.
"You are a pharmacist, not the local preacher. Your job is to dispense medicines as prescribed by a doctor. Don't like it? Find a new line of work."
Baloney. He is a seller of a product. You think that by executive fiat a private enterprise should be told what they have to sell?
Wrong in two ways:
1-It's not the government's place to force you to sell anything.
2-You think it is constitutional for the executive branch to make law by signing an order?
BTW, there is nothing in the constitution that makes anything and/or everything related to health care a "right".
Get a clue here. Think slippery slope.
I wouldn't know since I take neither, however, thanks for the tip. It's nice to be able to talk to people who have had these experiences. Why I love FR. Thanks again. Hope your heart prob is not serious!
This I agree with completely.
"Civil Disobedience" Henry David Thoreau...what did I read from a freeper on a different thread....STOP abortion and SAVE little Democrats
Since when does a pharmacist have the obligation to refuse a legit Doctor's prescrip? (other than a mistake)
Guess if the pharmacist did not believe in antibiotics, he/she could refuse to sell those as well.
You are a prison guard, working at Auschwitz during WWII. Your job is to make sure the prisoners arrive on time for their final appointment. Don't like it?
Find a different argument.
"Good"
As an operating room nurse, I have had the option for years NOT to be involved in abortions. I think people have a right to act according to their conscience. If government forces people into this, what will be the next step?
Ah the Nazi argument. Pure Codswallop.
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.