Posted on 07/21/2018 8:20:02 AM PDT by Simon Green
Edited on 07/21/2018 9:07:58 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Hilde Hall says she went straight from her doctor's office in April to a CVS pharmacy in her Phoenix suburb, eager to fill her first hormone therapy prescription.
The treatment would spur the physical changes in Hall's body that would reflect her identity as a transgender woman, she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at abc15.com ...
When you require man made drugs and surgery to become “who you feel you are” you might, just possibly, be doing something unnatural. Just maybe....:-P
Medical schools do not grant degrees in wisdom, or even common sense.
If the pharmacist wasn't a trained professional with an ethical obligation to not harm patients, there would be no need to have pharmacists at all, just robots.
And suppose that's what we'll eventually come to. People who actually act on the basis of professional ethics will be unemployable.
In America, we are supposed to value professional ethics, including the ethic that says, "First, do no harm."
Many would refuse to convey a suicide pill, as well.
You are right. He’s a guy and he might be sick, but these are the ones that Jesus come here and died for.
Of course you are right. It’s just so hard to see society flushed down the toilet. But then, it is worse to see someone go to hell because we Christians were so angry, we couldn’t show the love of Jesus to people who are repulsive to us, because of their obvious and blatant sin. (As opposed to our hidden sins?) It’s a hard road to follow, in which we are commanded to love and pray for those who despitefully use us.
But we are also commanded to shun evil. But it all comes down to what Jesus said about loving God and loving each other. Some people actually think He was talking about loving our brethren in Christ, only, but anyone who knows the Lord, knows better than that. Though many of us would be martyred in the process, I wonder how long it would take to convert the majority of the world, if we would stop striving and being angry, and showed the love of Jesus to every single non-Christian, even the vilest. Evil criminals have been won to the Lord by the actions of their victims, long after they killed that victim. (See Nate Saint) But I’m speaking in extremes, I know. It’s a very complicated issue.
All I know is, though younger readers won’t get it, life is so very short; the Bible calls it a vapor. But eternity never ends. Which is more important? When Paul was stoned, and twice given forty lashes minus one, he did not fight with those who administered the evil. Early Christians hid from the authorities, but when they were caught, and martyred, they considered it a privilege to die for the cause of Christ. Yes, they prayed for deliverance, but they believed if they were not delivered in this life, that they would be delivered in the next, and that whether they lived or died, it was for the cause of Christ. I don’t know how they stood being tortured or watching their children tortured. It’s incomprehensible to me. But one thing I do know, is that they are spending eternity with the Lord, and that torture they endured, in the light of eternity, does not compare with their reward.
So how do we bring it down to everyday life? Do we kill the home invader, rather than be killed? Or do we tell him we love him, and Jesus died for him, as we lay dying? Even the Old Testament allowed for self defense. Do we stand by and let our society crumble, or let crooked government take away our freedoms? We know what Jesus did. But he was sent here to die. 2 Chronicles 7:14 tells us that if we do what it says, God will heal our land. But in the New Testament, He only gave us instructions on how to treat each other, one person at a time. He did tell us, though, that HE had overcome the world. No matter what happens to us, good or bad, He told us, “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.” John 16:33
“He just kept asking, loudly and in front of other CVS staff and customers, why I was given the prescriptions,” she said.”
Won't the pharmacist be morally, if not legally,liable if he says, "Yes, I knew these hormones were not treating a disease, healing an injury, or correcting a physical anomaly, and yes, I knew the patient was in fact self-harming with the drug, and I knew very well what the severe side-effects or long-term health deterioration would be. But I was told to sell the drug regardless.
"Killed the patient? Not my problem. I was just following orders."
Profits over people.
Feelings over facts.p> And then you get to feel all sensitive and morally superior, to boot.
You are correct. It is important to always be kind. But it is more important to be moral and kind. One is not being kind by participating in a morally repugnant act of self mutilation.
Rightly so. Giving mental cases hormones is malpractice. So is cutting them up to suit their sexual preference. There ought to be penalties for any doctor or pharmacist assisting in this crap.
Giving that kook hormones is malpractice, and it should not be tolerated. The States should write laws barring doctors and pharmacists from enabling mentally ill people from tampering with their physiology.
And yes, they are nuts. Their suicide rate is 50%, and the ones that are most prone to suicide are the ones which actually go through with all the gender modifications.
Laws should be passed to prohibit sick freaks from trying to change sex.
This.
It is not a matter of being for or against transgender. I am disgusted by it as well and admit it.
Law is law. HIPPA is law. Medical privacy is law, yes, even for pharmacist.
So screaming at the patient in public (which may of happened or may not have) subjects CVS to potential steep fines for violating the patient’s privacy.
“The idea that gender is primarily a psycological phenomena is a strange and recent concoction.”
Yes it is — and the concoction was a strategic move. By altering the language so, “they” make rational discussion impossible.
I’m fine with “gender” being used to to label social-psychological phenomena. It becomes a big problem, however, when the term is used do describe certain biological phenomena. IOW, “gender” is social-psychological; and “sex” is biological. Conflating the two has made it impossible to discuss (e.g.) bathroom policies rationally.
Pharmacists have to make moral decisions like anyone else. Their conscience rights should be respected.
As a physician, I would not work for an organization that performs abortions. Does that mean I should have chosen another profession? Your statement makes no sense.
If you DID work for an organization that provides abortions, such as a non-religious affiliated hospital, then you could, of course, choose not to perform abortions. If a pharmacist didn’t want to dispense birth control, he could work at a pharmacy that does NOT provide birth control, such as a Catholic hospital pharmacy, but unless he has a very accommodating boss, he’s going to be required to dispense meds as ordered, as long as the prescription is appropriate, and the patient is not allergic to it.
But I think you know that most doctors have a little more sway with the hospital administration, than a pharmacist has, with his manager or a big corporation.
How do you make a hormone? Refuse to fill her prescription.
Excellent point. Obviously, the pharmacist couldn’t have embarrassed him too much.
If you trust a man dressed like a woman to tell the truth.
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.