I always thought I’d grow up to pursue a career in law, and I probably would have made a kick-ass attorney. But as I progressed through college and the prospect of LSATs and law school applications drew near, I strayed from that path for a number of well thought out and not so well thought out reasons.
Justified or not, part of my rationalization at the time was what I perceived to be the unique ethics of this adversarial profession. As an attorney my job would be to represent my clients to the best of my ability, and I imagined myself representing corporate or criminal clients who I knew to be in the wrong, yet for whom I knew I could achieve a victory in court. I did not relish the thought of pursuing a career where the profession’s ethical obligations might sometimes run counter to what I believed to be my moral obligation.
So I chose not to pursue a career in law, and for better or worse, here I am today.
Thus I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for pharmacists who seek the right to refuse to dispense certain legally approved medications based on religious objections, and I find yesterday’s decision of the WA State Board of Pharmacy to grant such right, ethically and morally objectionable.
Of course every pharmacist has the inalienable right to refuse to dispense birth control, but the sole means of exercising that right is to choose not to be a pharmacist.
Had I been an attorney defending a client whom I steadfastly believed to be guilty of a heinous crime such as murder or rape, it would still be ethically and legally inexcusable for me to knowingly withhold an exonerating piece of evidence. As an attorney it would be my job to defend my client… not to judge his guilt.
Pharmacists are medical professionals who take an oath to serve their customers. If they believe that a prescription my have adverse interactions with other drugs their customer may be taking, they have a right and an obligation to call that to the attention of the prescribing physician. But they do not have the right to question or refuse to dispense a prescription, solely based on their on personal beliefs about what is or is not an abortifacient, or their religious convictions as to the morality of abortion or birth control in general.
Pharmacists have a professional obligation to serve their customers, and if they cannot live up to it they should choose another profession. That is the choice all of us have.
We would not entertain the notion of an orthodox Jewish counter-clerk refusing to sell cheeseburgers at McDonalds, or a devoutly Quaker military officer refusing to send his men into battle. These would be individuals who chose the wrong profession. What’s next… a Christian Science pharmacist who refuses to dispense any medication at all?
Everybody is welcome to their own religious convictions, but they do not have the right to impose it on others. I’m not sure what powers Governor Gregoire has to counter the Pharmacy Board’s decision, but if she can’t do it forthwith I expect this to be a number one priority of the Legislature next session.
IF THEY DO NOT WANT TO DISPENSE MEDICINE THEY SHOULD GO INTO ANOTHER LINE OF WORK. IF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS GET IN THE WAY OF THEIR JOB, THEY NEED ANOTHER LINE OF WORK.
WHY SHOULD SOMEONE BE DEPRIVED OF MEDICINE BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS ISSUES?
Fortunately, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health Care plans to introduce legislation to reverse this decision. I just wrote her a letter thanking her for being out front on this issue. If Chris Gregoire had been 1/10th this involved, this decision might have gone the other way.
Anyway, here’s her Website address (e-mail link is right there):
http://www.sdc.wa.gov/keiser.htm
THANKS MAD DOG FOR THE INFO AND UPDATE.
DAMN WRONG NEO CON WINGERS INTERERING WITH THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
IF THE PHARMACISTS BELIEVE IN DISPENSING MEDICINE IN A JUDGMENTAL AND DISCRIMINATING MANNER, THEY NEED TO FIND ANOTHER LINE OF WORK.
Thanks for brining up the issue of the pharmacist Oath.
By taking this oath, if the pharmacists disagrees with dispensing the morning after pill for religious reasons, they not only have the right, they have an obligation to NOT dispense this drug.
An excerpt of this oath:
“I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct.”
I see in the news that Alberto Gonzales wants to know what we’re reading on the internet. Hey Alberto, read this: FUCK YOU, FASCIST PIG! YOUR MOTHER IS A BLOW-UP DOLL.
Goldy,
Let me see if I am following you.
If a pharmacist is a Christian, and they believe that the day after pill is a form or abortion (therefore killing an innocent child), your position is that they do not have a right to question what the government tells them to do? Correct?
As a Jew, does this same belief hold true for, say, German concentration camp guard that took part in holocaust? Was their participation mandatory? Their guilt false?
Hard ass–
You keep referring to “dispensing MEDICINE”????
It’s not as if there aren’t plenty of Pharmacists who will dispense the MEDICINE you refer to.
If a MEDICINE is legal, then you are bound to find someone to dispense this MEDICINE.
All it takes is a couple of phone calls to find someone who will dispense this MEDICINE.
The post at #4 evinces a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of the Pharmacist’s Oath. But then, wingnuts generally lack understanding of the fundamental nature of everything, including how to spell the word “to.”
Here’s the flaw in your reasoning, #4. No oath is open to subjective interpretation or has a different meaning for each individual who takes it. Over 30 years ago, I took the Attorney’s Oath, and it means exactly the same thing when applied to me as it does when applied to our state’s 28,000 other licensed attorneys. It doesn’t have 28,000 meanings.
The Pharmacist’s Oath binds every pharmacist to ethical, moral, and legal conduct, but those terms don’t mean whatever the pharmacist wants them to mean. They constitute an objective standard that is defined by the Pharmacy Board and/or courts. The individual pharmacist doesn’t get to choose what “moral” means, any more than I get to decide what “diligent representation” of my client means.
So, #4, you’ve gotten it exactly backwards: By taking this oath, the pharmacist agrees to adhere to a uniform standard of conduct, and agrees NOT to substitute his or her own ethical or moral judgment for the Board’s definitions of those terms.
6
“If a pharmacist is a Christian, and they believe that the day after pill is a form or abortion (therefore killing an innocent child), your position is that they do not have a right to question what the government tells them to do? Correct?”
Correct. Every licensed professional, as a condition of being licensed, agrees to conform to uniform standards of professional conduct prescribed by society as a whole.
Yeah, I’m not to wound up about this issue. If someone doesn’t want to dispense meds. . .pick up the phone call around. Odd’s are you’ll find it within 5 miles of your house.
Let’s face it. If it’s legal, the pharmacutical companies will make sure you can buy their products.
Let’s worry about more important issues; like how the fuck do we salvage the debacle in Iraq? Or, how congress is getting ready to raise the national debt limit again to $11 Trillion dollars. The crime and corruption that is rampant in the Bush Republican congress. The dismanteling of FEMA. Iran. Where the fuck is Osama bin Laden for Christ’s sake?!?! Price of oil. Global warming. Unseating Dave Reichert. Prosecuting Tom DeLay. Conservative voter fraud. NSA spying on Americans. Bush’s low approval rating.
Damn, there’s a lot more important shit to worry about than the teeny, tiny portion of the population that might have to call a couple of pharmacies to get their morning after pill.
Yeah Rog, stop sweatin’ the small stuff!!
Rather than screw around pickin’ flyshit outta pepper, do something productive like helping Goldy extort his kids school back so the School District can be further in the red!
The only “morning after pill” Roger Rabbit needs is called a “HANGOVER PILL”!
Well I think we need to visit the right wing taliban approach to this issue. I will start up an initiative to take this to the people – if the righties want to take over medicine with their taliban -style government, we need to stop them. I say, don’t just rely on the legislature. Let’s show these assholes that the initiative process works both ways!
I am with Goldy on this.
A pharmicist is not a doctor, he dispenses medicine. He does not get to insert his beliefs into a doctor’s prescription.
He is required to issue the medicine per the doctors orders, period. The last thing I want is him deciding if the doctor is right or not and messing with my scripts.
The moral issue of the day after pill is not in question, it is professional ethics straight and simple. he has a job. he needs to do it without letting his own baggage cloud it, or quit go into the florist business.
I dont care for abortion, but this is not an abortion issue. It is a simple issue of medical ethics. Those pharmicists are overstepping their responsibility.
Now…if the PHARMACY wants to not carry, it that is their right, and I expect some conservative pharmacies will not (like wal-mart maybe).
But that’s a different issue altogether.
#4–failing to issue meds per the doctors orders is an ethical violation, and a legal one.
#5–deep breath Roger….in ….out….
#6– the pharmicist has agreed to follow the rules of his trade. If dispensing things he finds objectionable is an issue, he needs to change trades, not cherry pick his following of the rules.
#7–sorry, no one should ahve to jump through that many hoops so the pharmicist can play reverend doctor.
@8
Roger, you’ve got this backwards. Based on the morality of this issue, argued by individual pharmacists and supported by the board, the State Board has said this is the proper direction.
As to your being an Attorney, you must not have been a very good one as your command of the english language (oh, wait, are you an illegal immigrant?) is not very good.
My use of the word of the word to, is based on it’s being used to indicate the relationship of a verb with its complement, in the case “obligation to NOT dispense”. Possibly the use of the adverb, NOT, is throwing you for a loop.
As you stated, your practiced law for 30 years. I would assume it is safe to say that you were employed by a government agency where having a skilled craft was NOT one of the requirements of the job?
This is important GBS, because it is about REFUSING MEDICAL CARE based on religious (political, gender, race, ethnic) prejudice. This new Pharmacy Board refusal clause allows a pharmacist to refuse to dispense any medication on moral grounds regardless of medical need or severity. It is a massive foot in the door of our medical system by the religious right and it is important to slap it down fast and hard. This isn’t just about contraception. They want to decide who lives and dies from before birth right up to very old age.
And it’s a wake-up call on those other pressing problems you mention and hitting it fast and hard through the legislature hopefully will remind legislators here and in DC that they can act forcefully and with conviction against attacks on American freedoms. They can if they have conviction and speak up, together.
I sent emails to the Executive Director of the Pharmacy Assoication, the governor, and my 3 state legislators, and Sen. Keiser. I dont know why I got so hot about this issue. Something about the idea of a pharmacist telling me, “I dont think what you are doing is morally right according to Jesus, so here’s a phone book. Good luck finding another pharmacy. No, I won’t drive you there. Or pay you for lost time, you degenerate.” With people standing next to me at the counter hearing all of it.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....aws02.html
The drugs seemed safe and have transformed life for patients with cancer and with osteoporosis. But recently, there have been reports of a new and serious side effect: death of areas of bone in the jaw
If I was a pharmacist, seems like those doctors who prescribe this class of drugs are flat out wrong for doing so. Sorry, but in a few weeks, I could refuse to stock them, but, as I will tell the customer, I heard that there is a place in Spokane where you can get that wickied script for poison filled. Or maybe you can have your doctor give you a class of drug which I feel the studies support as being safe.
Oh, but you can have a morning after pill, you slut, because, wink,wink I’m not one of those kinds of pharmacists.
The Peanut Gallery, the least you could do is alter the text of your posts from website to website. When you copy and paste the same comment over and over on different sites, it gives the appearance that you don’t care enough to think of something original (or that you are incapable of doing so).
Another TJ…
That’s rich. Kinda like Goldy, Eli at the stranger and Wil from pike place posting up the same damn things all the time?
#18,
Are you suggesting that Goldy, Eli, and Will are the same person?
I am suggesting that they cut and paste the same talking points, (supplied by the simms, cantwell and burners PR people?) and don’t care enough to be creative.
@ 15:
I see your point, and in general I agree with your concerns. But the pharamcutical industry is not about religion when there’s a buck to be made, and coservative politicians are not about morals when their corporate masters want to make money.
What I’m saying is stay focused on the bigger, more important picture right now: Electing Democrats to office. The rest we can ramrod down THEIR throats once we have regained power.
If you will be so kind, could you please identify the common text between Goldy’s post on this topic and Eli’s post to which Goldy linked?
If there is no common text, could you please identify the common arguments found in Goldy’s post on this topic and Eli’s post to which Goldy?
If you will be so kind, could you identify the differences between The Peanut Gallery’s post at the Stranger and his post here?
IDWYOT @ 18,
Huh? You think that Goldy, Eli and Will are the same people reposting the same stuff?
What kind of a fucking idiot are you?
6 (continued)
” … does this same belief hold true for, say, German concentration camp guard that took part in holocaust? Was their participation mandatory? Their guilt false?”
You can’t make a blanket generalization about the concentration camp guards. Some requested concentration camp duty and took delight in committing acts of murder and sadism; others were under orders. Most of those hanged by the Allies were individually sadistic or voluntarily partricipated in “selections” (i.e., choosing people for the gas chambers). In many other cases, the Allies meted out light sentences because of mitigating factors, including coercion. So, yes, they were judge by the voluntariness of their actions.
The Catholic Church deems contraception a moral wrong which Catholics have a moral duty to refuse to practice or participate in. Right-to-lifers of all faiths regard abortion as a “holocaust” morally comparable to the Nazis’ slaughter of the Jews.
Compromise — a principle right wingers don’t believe in — is the essence of our democracy, and is a primary means by which our political system respects the rights of groups whose views do not enjoy a voting majority. The Pharmacy Board applied the principle of compromise by carving out an exception to the general duty of pharmacists to fill prescriptions in order to allow an important minority of pharmacists to practice the profession in a manner consistent with their perceived religious or moral duties.
I believe that society can accomodate this compromise (a) as long as pharmacies advertise any policy not to fill certain prescriptions, and (b) provided that alternatives are available in the community. I also believe it is a proper exercise of state authority to refuse this option to pharmacies in locales where no alternative source of the prescription is available — generally, these will be pharmacies in rural areas and small towns served by a single pharmacist. While these cases would represent an impingement on the pharmacist’s freedom of choice, the supersession of state power over individual choice is justified in these cases under the “common good” principle.
7
“It’s not as if there aren’t plenty of Pharmacists who will dispense the MEDICINE you refer to.” Commentby Mr. Cynical— 6/2/06@ 2:32 pm
While this is true of Seattle, Spokane, and other cities, there certainly are places in our state served by only one pharmacist, where your rationale doesn’t apply. See my comment above.
Who’s the Nazi now?
You deny Pharmacists the freedom to conduct business as they sees fit within the law? The pill is available elswhere, but no, ALL pharmacists MUST sell the pill.
** Seig Heil **
11
This isn’t small stuff, Cynical. It’s an important issue, without an easy solution, and with implications for all other licensed professions. Should a lawyer, for example, be allowed to withdraw from representation of a criminal defendant because he concludes his client is guilty?
13
If doctors can refuse to prescribe contraceptives, should pharmacists be able to refuse to fill such prescriptions? If the rule should be different for doctors and pharmacists, why?
14
“Roger, you’ve got this backwards. Based on the morality of this issue, argued by individual pharmacists and supported by the board, the State Board has said this is the proper direction.”
Wrong, pal. The State Board did NOT say pharmacists can decide what is “ethical.” It created a rule of uniform application that authorizes pharmacists to decline to dispense certain specified pharmaceuticals. The reason for the rule is not really relevant to the nature of the Board’s action. The whole point is that individual pharmacists don’t have a prerogative to decide what is ethical or what is not, based on their subjective personal beliefs, and the Board’s action does not change that. Rather, the Board’s action reinforces and reaffirms the principle that pharmacists can refuse to dispense medications only when they are authorized to do so by state law or by Board regulation.
As to your being an Attorney, you must not have been a very good one as your command of the english language (oh, wait, are you an illegal immigrant?) is not very good.
My use of the word of the word to, is based on it’s being used to indicate the relationship of a verb with its complement, in the case “obligation to NOT dispense”. Possibly the use of the adverb, NOT, is throwing you for a loop.
As you stated, your practiced law for 30 years. I would assume it is safe to say that you were employed by a government agency where having a skilled craft was NOT one of the requirements of the job?
Commentby I disagree with you on this— 6/2/06@ 3:07 pm
There is no difference. same text I used on the slog, I used here. So what’s your point? That there isn’t enough to read on the internet?
“As to your being an Attorney, you must not have been a very good one as your command of the english language (oh, wait, are you an illegal immigrant?) is not very good.”
My English is fine, thank you very much.
“My use of the word of the word to, is based on it’s being used to indicate the relationship of a verb with its complement, in the case “obligation to NOT dispense”. Possibly the use of the adverb, NOT, is throwing you for a loop.”
Commentby I disagree with you on this— 6/2/06@ 3:07 pm
Where did I make any reference to YOUR use of the word “to”? If you go back and read my post carefully, you’ll see that I shifted focus to “wingnuts generally” and made reference to a post in a previous thread wherein a right-winger poster used the word “too” where the context called for the word “to.” I don’t know whether you were that poster. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, then take my comment as it was written — a generic slam on right-wingers by citing one right-winger’s misspelling of the word “to” with no insinuation that you were that poster.
14 (continued)
“I would assume it is safe to say that you were employed by a government agency where having a skilled craft was NOT one of the requirements of the job?” Commentby I disagree with you on this— 6/2/06@ 3:07 pm
I tend to agree with your assessment of the agencies I worked for. That’s why they needed me.
I hesitate to give you specific examples, as that might give away my identity. Let’s just say that I straightened out some incredibly stupid decisions, and let it go at that.
@29…
Roger,
Are you actually an attorney? I get the feeling that you just a fucking moron.
Go back, read the June 1st bill. Ultimately, it comes down to the interpretation of the phrase, “If the pharmacist cannot” As in, if there a moral reason they cannot perform this task, they need to point the customer in another direction.
Please tell me you no longer practice law. People as dumb as yourself should be limited to watching Judge Judy, calling there wife mother and changing your depends when the all fiber diet makes you shit your pants, again.
There is no difference. same text I used on the slog, I used here. So what’s your point? That there isn’t enough to read on the internet?
My point is quite clear, and I made it in commment number 17. The comment to which you evidently are referring was not directed at you, as should be obvious.
20
Speaking of spelling, you can’t even spell Sims correctly. How are you on the word “to”? That’s a question, not an insinuation. I’m genuinely curious.
@33..
let me guess, you are an 800 # judge on American Idol and you are still pissed about the William Hung Incident?
26
I think, dear Jack, this argument is about whether refusing to dispense certain medications should be within or outside the law.
I stand corrected on my not spelling Sims correctly.
I do stand by the senior diapers comment and your continually shitting your pants.
That’s the reason you don’t confirm your attendance at Drinking liberally isn’t it?
Oh, I see. I didn’t really that you are a fucking moron. I was going simple by you addressing me by name, but I just put mine up without addressing you by name. So, you are the resident blow hard on this site huh? Good. never liked reading your posts anyways.
26
Say, by the way, Jack, if the State Supreme Court (which promulgates lawyers’ ethics rules) decides that I can’t withdraw from representing a criminal defendant because I think he’s guilty, does the fact the Justices are putting a higher priority on the rights of the accused than on my personal preferences make them a band of Nazis?
Yeah, I use the term “Nazi” frequently in my posts — but that’s because you guys ARE nazis. You’re warmongers. You condone torture, and condone the coverup of torture, and condone the harassment and even murder of journalists and others who expose the use of torture by our government. Some right-wingers think there’s nothing wrong with murdering Iraqi babies and children, and are unsparing in your condemnation of those who report these atrocities. Yeah, you guys are nazis.
Boy, talk about petty. 40 posts and half of them are points on bad grammar and spellings. But then again, such is the nature of debate on the Internet. Morons who have nothing to say will also break out the Strunk & White. Makes themselves feel good.
RE #29
The rule does not just alloow pharmacists to “decline to dispense certain specified pharmaceuticals.” It allows them to decline to dispense ANY pharmaceutical for religious reasons.
This just isn’t appropriate for health care.
As for “zeig heil.” The same thing was said about laws that require a gas station to sell gasoline to a black man or a jew, just as they would anyone else.
Are you actually an attorney? I get the feeling that you just a fucking moron.
Go back, read the June 1st bill. Ultimately, it comes down to the interpretation of the phrase, “If the pharmacist cannot” As in, if there a moral reason they cannot perform this task, they need to point the customer in another direction.
Please tell me you no longer practice law. People as dumb as yourself should be limited to watching Judge Judy, calling there wife mother and changing your depends when the all fiber diet makes you shit your pants, again.
Commentby I disagree with you on this— 6/2/06@ 4:21 pm
Oh, I see.
You really don’t, dude. You really don’t.
never liked reading your posts anyways.
I’m crushed.
Hey? What happened to my post???
“Are you actually an attorney? I get the feeling that you just a fucking moron.” Commentby I disagree with you on this— 6/2/06@ 4:21 pm
I’ll answer your question this way:
1. I don’t give a flying fuck whether you believe I’m an attorney or not.
2. There’s nothing written anywhere that says a person can’t be an attorney and a fucking moron at the same time. I can cite examples of attorneys who are fucking morons. Here’s two:
a. Theresa Olsen (she’s the public defender who had sex with her client, a triple murder defendant, in his jail cell)
b. Richard Pope (self-explanatory)
3. It seems only fair that you think I’m a fucking moron because, after all, I think YOU are a fucking moron.
34
“Please tell me you no longer practice law. People as dumb as yourself should be limited to watching Judge Judy, calling there wife mother and changing your depends when the all fiber diet makes you shit your pants, again.” Commentby I disagree with you on this— 6/2/06@ 4:21 pm
Whether I practice law or not is none of your fucking business. Here’s a suggestion for you: The next time you get arrested, ask your lawyer if he’s a Republican and if he says yes, you can take comfort in knowing you’re not being represented by me.
As for who’s “dumb,” I know how to spell the word “their.”
gee… Another TJ you forgot to point out that I already post #42 is the very same quip I posted to blog over on My Space… are you falling asleep? It’s been up for nearly 27 min and you haven’t mentioned it yet. Surely, YOU didn’t miss it?
37
“let me guess, you are an 800 # judge on American Idol”
I wish! American Idol is better than any gig I ever got.
” … and you are still pissed about the William Hung Incident?”
Who is William Hung?
39
I don’t confirm my attendance at Drinking Liberally for the simple reason that I haven’t been attending Drinking Liberally.
I hope this explanation isn’t too complicated for you.
42
If you and your ilk are dumb enough to call your intellectual superiors “morons,” why shouldn’t we point out that you can’t even handle fourth-grade grammar and spelling?
42 (continued)
Don’t get me wrong, Peanut. I think there should be a Republican Party. We have to put you ignorant fucks someplace, and we don’t want you in our party. Think of the GOP as a diaper pail for society’s educational failures. Without the GOP, your mothers would have to throw you on the floor.
gee… Another TJ you forgot to point out that I already post #42 is the very same quip I posted to blog over on My Space… are you falling asleep? It’s been up for nearly 27 min and you haven’t mentioned it yet. Surely, YOU didn’t miss it?
I’m sorry to have to say this directly, but I’m just not that in to you.
43
That seems overly broad to me.
OH, Another TJ, since I am coming clean, I should point out that in #49, I used all those words once on a BBS post, back in 1996. But they were all in a different order, and the word “my” and “space” were not capitalized, so you might not remember that post. But this one, this one is fresh.
What is BBS?
See, there I am, being misunderstood again. Sorry Another TJ, I didn’t mean to suggest you were “into” me. I only meant to point out that several of my posts here could be found elsewhere, sometimes verbatim, sometime in different contexts. I got the impression that you were monitoring the Internet and need to point out duplicate comments.
by Goldy,
I always thought I’d grow up to pursue a career in law. [………………………………………………………………………Gee, what a surprise. Another Jew named Goldstein, Lowenstein, Winerstein, or Stein who wants to be a lawyer. NEVER a military man………..always a ACL Jew lawyer. Enough said. JCH]
Bulletin Board Service. Worked kind of like blog sites do today, but were powered by coal.
Jack Booted Roger Rabbit @ 41
“Yeah, I use the term “Nazi” frequently in my posts – but that’s because you guys ARE nazis. You’re warmongers. You condone torture, and condone the coverup of torture, and condone the harassment and even murder of journalists and others who expose the use of torture by our government. Some right-wingers think there’s nothing wrong with murdering Iraqi babies and children, and are unsparing in your condemnation of those who report these atrocities. Yeah, you guys are nazis.”
Do you REALLY believe this?
Is the use of the word “some” supposed to temper this? I’m sure “some” lefties believe the same.
I’ve got 3 words for you: Arbeit Macht Frei
61
“Do you REALLY believe this?” Commentby Jack Burton— 6/2/06@ 5:22 pm
Yes.
Hey, don’t blame me — you asked.
“I’m sure “some” lefties believe the same.” Commentby Jack Burton— 6/2/06@ 5:22 pm
Bullshit.
“Arbeit Macht Frei”
I’ve got three words for you:
Fuck Your Armadillo
As a health care professional (not a pharmacist) should I refuse to give narcotics for pain because I personally believe that it is an immoral choice to become a drug addict? Should I be able to refuse to care for a spouse abuser because I feel it to be morally wrong? I wish!
The problem here is that some of these objecting pharmacists have actually confiscated the written prescription and therefore the paitent can no longer try to find another pharmacy. Who owns that piece of paper anyway? Never mind the embarrassment of it all.
Pharmacies who hire pharmacists with these beliefs should also be required to post that information prominently, not only to make it a whole lot easier for the client but for the rest of us who might then choose to spend our dollars at a facility where such practices are not condoned.
Roger @13
If a business owner refuses to seell them in his business, fine. thats a choice. If an individual pharmacists has them in his pharmacy and refuses to issue them, that is an individual choice that to me violates his ethics.
I see a plain difference between whether Walgreens as a chain does or does not stock a controversial drug and the pharmacist at a single location refusing to issue it as a personal affront.
The question also comes to my mind, ‘What if a Pharmacist objects, on moral grounds, to prescribing to an AIDS patient?’ and of course, we cannot dispense antibiotics to someone so immoral as to contract an STD. . . .
This is a decision that need some serious re-thinking ( assuming it was encumbered by the thought process in the first place.)
sorry roger, that was @28
JCH @ 59
You anti-semitic asshole. How do you sleep at night? I am a calm guy. I don’t rattle easily. But you managed to accomplish it in 50 words or less.
Ignorant, moronic, mouth-breathing, pond scum excuse for a life form. Should we ever meet, I will be happy to explain to you, it terms you might understand very clearly, why your words are incendiary and should not be used here.
But thanks just the same. When someone resorts to the use of ugly prejudice and name calling, they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have NOTHING worthwhile to say, no valid argument and not one shred of brain matter.
Roger Babid:
@63: So NOT ONE Red Necked “liberal” who lives in the south believes the tripe you mentioned? WRONG I lived in NC and plenty of otherwise liberal folks believe that..as I’m sure a few righties do too. But hey, we’ll just characterize ALL of the group based on the actions/beliefs of a few.
@64: PETA frowns on sex with animals.
This is NOT a access issue, it’s purely POLITICAL. Plan B is readily available many places. Planned Parenthood in Oregon will Mail Plan B to the individual. There is no health crisis here, just the denial of individual freedom.
So what’s next? Yellow Stars?
There is another way to fight this. Nothing scares a right winger like messing with his money. We can boycott pharmacies that hire these right wing assholes and tell em, “You get caught with one of these turds working for you and you don’t get our business.” I am also going to contact my health insurance company and let them know I will switch insurance companies if they in any support the pharmacists who push their religion on the rest of us.
69, My Left Foot…….YOUR military service?? Yeah, I thought so. About the same as Goldysteinberg’s. The truth upsets you? Too fucking bad!!!
Nothing scares a right winger like messing with his money.
Commentby LeftTurn […………………………………………………….Er, Nothing sares a lib like taking away his “guvment” job, food stamps, or welfare check. You libs are parasites.]
“We would not entertain the notion of an orthodox Jewish counter-clerk refusing to sell cheeseburgers at McDonalds,”
So does this mean that every restaurant should be forced to sell cheeseburgers, pork, meat, alcohol, or coffee, regardless of the religious beliefs of the restaurant owner?
Same principle applies to pharmacies as to restaurants.
And for the lawyer analogy, an attorney has the right to choose to represent or not represent a given client, based on their moral, religious or other personal reasons.
Peanut Gallery @ 56
“OH, Another TJ, since I am coming clean, I should point out that in #49, I used all those words once on a BBS post, back in 1996. But they were all in a different order, and the word “my” and “space” were not capitalized, so you might not remember that post. But this one, this one is fresh.”
In other words, you are telling us that you’ve masturbated again.
Nobody gives a shit, asshole!
@74 That example doesn’t really apply here.
@71 Plan B is available all over the place. There no shortage.
AND: You’ve got it backwards. This is about taking freedom away from religious pharmacists…not them “pushing” their religion on you.
But since it’s mostly Christians that have an issue with selling Plan B it’s OK to force them to right?
PLEASE NOTE: Regardless of how any of you FEEL, my defense of one’s religious freedom does NOT constitute me forcing religious values on anyone here. **Put on your tin foil hats and you’ll be protected**
@74
Mr. Pope, I’ve been to one world’s fair, a picnic and a rodeo, and that isn’t exactly the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen come across a computer screen, but it’s in the top ten for today. Step back and look at what you said. There’s a great deal of difference between the owner and an employee. If I want to start a kosher deli or a halal lunch counter, that’s my right and customers can expect a certain kind of food, but if I’m an orthodox Jewish McDonald’s franchisee I’m going to have an even shorter career than anything JCH has ever done in his life becase McDonald’s has a set menu, cheeseburgers are a part of that menu, and no cheeseburger is ever going to be kosher as long as the cheese has any milk in it at all. (I’m deliberately bypassing the all-too-easy joke that can be made about this.)
If, on the other hand, I own a McDonald’s and an employee of mine refuses to serve cheeseburgers because he’s an orthodox Jew, he will be an ex-employee as fast as I can get him into the office so I can fire him without humiliating him any further than necessary in front of his peers.
This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with an expected level of service, except that if someone feels that they can’t perform their job because of their religious beliefs, they have to decide which is more important — their job or their religion.
Richard Poop is a failed politician. (When is your next scheduled defeat Richard?) Judging from some of his ramblings with regard to the law (on at least one occasion he conflated criminal procedures with civil) he cannot be too snazzy a lawyer. (The old law practice not keeping you busy enough,Richard?)
His only hope appears to be getting on as a paid RightwingWhackjob troll. Hence, he confuses quantity for quality in his posts. Of necessity the quality suffers.
If, on the other hand, I own a McDonald’s and an employee of mine refuses to serve cheeseburgers because he’s an orthodox Jew, he will be an ex-employee as fast as I can get him into the office so I can fire him without humiliating him any further than necessary in front of his peers.
Commentby Yer kiddin me— 6/2/06@ 7:20 pm
For crying out loud, this doesnt give the empoyee the right to refuse selling a prescription that the empoyer has in stock. It gives the right to pharmacy owners not to stock it. Geeeesh. You commies are hilarious. Get use to it. It’s called freedom of association/choice.
We have now officially reached the exhaustion of the RightwingWhackjobs ability to argue effectively. . .Now, if you disagree, you are a ‘commie’.
Congratulations, Rufus, that’s right down their at your usual abysmally ignorant level of discourse.
An employee at Swedish hospital refused to dispense antibiotics for a clinic that dispenses, contraceptives, counseling and abortions.
This was a refusal for medicine to prevent infection not a contraceptive. Where is the line drawn?
The employee said “I know who you are” and then refused to dispense antibiotics that a clinic called in.
ANTIBIOTICS FOR CHRIST SAKES
FUCKING REPUBLICAN NAZIS
@81
Well, that’s OK I guess because the word “commie” is meaningless.
Not only that, as far as I can tell this is about whether a pharmacist can refuse to dispense a prescription based on religious beliefs. I will be glad to be shown, in the text of the ruling, where I am wrong.
And if this is about pharmacies not stocking medications, I have no problem with that provided their policies are clearly posted so that I can take my business elsewhere. No doubt an informal list will eventually spring up and be passed around, but if pharmacies are placing religious beliefs over medical obligations they should be happy to say so.
That’s fine for me, of course, because I can walk to five different pharmacies from where I live. But what about someone from Othello or Ephrata or Forks or other small towns where there are few options other than the local Walmart? Do they have to drive an hour or two to a city where they can get their prescription filled?
Where does violation of the doctor/patient relationship enter into all of this? If my doc prescribes birth control, antibiotics, whatever, and someone at the pharm refuses me, isn’t the pharmacy worker violating the orders of my doctor? Aren’t they interfering with my choice to accept the medication prescribed? In short, aren’t they’re inserting themselves into a relationship that is presumed to be confidential?
The pharmacy worker isn’t my doctor. Whose rights take precedence here?
Goldy,
Your analogy breaks down when you consider that nothing obligates an attorney to take a client. If a pharmacist doesn’t want to dispense birth control, go ahead and boycott them — but you’ll be doing it at your own risk.
So you pro-borts finally admit what you’ve refused to say all along: you view baby-killing as birth control.
At least you’re finally honest about it.
I’ve given up looking for a shred of evidence to convince me that both sides in this issue don’t have their heads up their butts.
The pharmacy worker isn’t my doctor. Whose rights take precedence here?
Commentby WenG— 6/2/06@ 8:32 pm
The pharmacists is just a seller of drugs and may or may not have the particular drug your doctor prescribes. If you want pharmacies to carry all drugs all the time then you should federalize them. Until then you have no right to tell a pharmacist he/she must carry a particular drug. If the drug is a matter of life and death to take then the doctor should have it on hand.
“If you want pharmacies to carry all drugs all the time then you should federalize them. Until then you have no right to tell a pharmacist he/she must carry a particular drug.”
Comment by Rufus
If the pharmacy is already stocking the medication, Plan B for example, and a particular worker on a particular shift refuses to dispense, what then?
Then I would assume that the employee would get fired for not doing their job. That person would have to find a pharmacist that shared the same values.
ProudASS @ 86
“So you pro-borts finally admit what you’ve refused to say all along: you view baby-killing as birth control.”
Oh, sure. Abortion, infanticide, wacking off…we love it all. We frequently get tired of our children and cook them up, make pate out of them and then serve ’em on gluten-free rice crackers at big liberal parties.
Hey ProudASS…don’t you have several thousand blogs to shut down? You know, the ones with photos of school kids on ’em? Better hurry…they are popping up faster than you can shut ’em down.
I think I’ll ask my doctor friends if they can use a moral objection to offering life saving treatment to any republican that comes to the hospital. After all, if they save the right winger, they are putting the rest of us at risk due to the incredible stupidity and cowardice of all republicans. So the doctor can say it’s against his religion or morals to save people who are just out to destory the planet!
92
If only the liberal doctors would out themselves. I dont trust socialized medicine.
Be very careful applying “urban” perspectives to this debate. If you are in, for instance Chewelah, WA (look it up) the nearest drug stores are Kettle Falls or Republic. Not exactly 5 minutes away. ANd if either of both refuse, it’s farther still.
94
While we are at it shouldn’t we put a level one shock-truama unit is Chewelah since they are hundreds of miles away from Harborview. Afterall it is not their fault they live in Chewelah.
GBS THE LITTLE PISS ANT.SEEIMG HOW YOU WERE SUCH A BAD ASS SEAL WHY DONT YOU FIND OSAMA. YOUR SO FUCKIN SMART.BUT HEY YOU CANT DO THAT BECAUSE THATS RIGHT THEY THREW YOU OUT OF THE NAVY.FUCKIN LOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSER.ALL YOUR GOOD FOR IS TO EAT SHIT AND BARK AT THE MOON
YO, @ 96, I want you to know that I just printed out your comment and put it on my wall. That is the most eloquent statement I have seen on this blog in months. Being about to reread it will help get me slog through the hundreds and hundreds of inferior comments that clog up HA.
Thank you for once again renewing my sense of hope that we can have an intelligent and engaging discussion among people with very different views.
Be very careful applying “urban” perspectives to this debate. If you are in, for instance Chewelah, WA (look it up) the nearest drug stores are Kettle Falls or Republic. Not exactly 5 minutes away. ANd if either of both refuse, it’s farther still. -Commentby K— 6/2/06@ 10:25 pm
This is a straw dog at best… do you not think that if a pharmacy cannot/will not fill a PRESCRIBED drug, that the doctor prescribing it (you know the one the baby killing mommy had to go see to GET the prescription) might just have it on hand?
Exactly how many abortions have you had, ASS? You seem awfully touchy about it.
Allow me to put a little perspective on this topic…
This is from the US Department of Labor:
Pharmacists held about 230,000 jobs in 2004. About 61 percent work in community pharmacies that are either independently owned or part of a drugstore chain, grocery store, department store, or mass merchandiser. Most community pharmacists are salaried employees, but some are self-employed owners. About 24 percent of salaried pharmacists work in hospitals. Others work in clinics, mail-order pharmacies, pharmaceutical wholesalers, home health care agencies, or the Federal Government.
There are 230,000 Pharmacists you KLOWNS!!
How may do you think will refuse to issue your desired MEDICINE???
What a bunch of fucking idiots!@
Wasn’t it Ms. Cynical who was recently trying to tell me that I should be more civil?
I would think that businesses may decide whether or not to stock specific drugs, but pharmacists who are employees of those businesses do not have that sort of power of choice.
And, Mr. Cynical, that’s a pretty pathetic argument, as you underestimate the tenacity of pro-lifers. Take South Dakota, for instance, where there are TWO abortion clinics for the entire state (something like 750,000 people).
One of the major pro-life strategies is, instead of making abortion outright illegal, to just make it incredibly difficult so that it is LIKE it is illegal. Don’t think that this won’t become politicized and manipulated.
leftturn @ 101:
The trolls don’t have any moral compass when participating here because we are the enemy. When a meme works to their advantage, they use it. When it doesn’t, they pretend they never made it.
Of course, the effectiveness of this approach depends upon the public having a short memory. As the implications of one-party government sink in, I bet that more and more people will begin to see the right’s many contradictions.
98
” … do you not think that if a pharmacy cannot/will not fill a PRESCRIBED drug, that the doctor prescribing it (you know the one the baby killing mommy had to go see to GET the prescription) might just have it on hand?”
No. Why would any rational person think that? Doctors aren’t pharmacists, and doctors’ offices aren’t pharmacies. But I can see why adherents of the Irrational Party (i.e., GOP) would assume* that.
* Wingers don’t think, but research indicates they have sufficient cerebral function to make primitive assumptions.
230,000 Pharmacists nationwide.
End of discussion.
I always love to note that the abortion rate went DOWN under President Clinton and went UP under the Pretender & Thief, Monkey Face Bush. But wingers never stop to look at the effect of thier actions. They just blindly follow the talbian-wing of their party into the ocean and patiently wait to drown.
I wonder if it hurts to be that stupid?
100
Cynical, lest you forget, this issue was brought to the attention of the news media, Pharmacy Board, and Legislature because a pharmacy refused to fill a prescription for an ANTIBIOTIC because it was written by a women’s health clinic.The woman’s life was in danger from infection, and some damn moralizing pharmacist decided to let her die because he assumed she got the infection from an abortion, never mind the clinic in question provides health services besides abortions and treats general medical conditions.
So, Cynical, how far would you go with a pharmacist’s prerogative to refuse prescriptions because of the pharmacist’s personal predilections? Should pharmacists be allowed to refuse to serve blacks? Should pharmacists be allowed to ask for proof of citizenship before filling prescriptions? Should pharmacists be allowed to ask who you voted for, before agreeing to fill your prescription?
As I posted above, I would consider going along with a narrow exception — limited to morning-after pills and possibly contraceptives — to accomodate the pro-life views of Catholics and members of other established churches in communities where alternatives are available. But a general prerogative of pharmacists to refuse service to anyone they choose? No fucking way! If a pharmacist doesn’t want to serve blacks or Hispanics, he should not only be kicked out of the profession, he should be kicked out of the state! We don’t need any assholes here turning Washington into a Mississippi.
correction
“written by a women’s health clinic that performs abortions.”
Cynical, are you a closet racist? Just wondering.
103
You nailed it, G.T. These people are on a mission, so anything goes. In their minds, lying and dishonesty and even murder are justified, because they’re doing God’s work. Therefore, they are infallible.
I’ve had some experience with self-described “Christian” businessmen. Let’s put it this way, if you’re ever around one of these characters, nail everything to the floor.
Rog—
I am only willing to give the Pharmacist the ability to decide WHAT prescriptions he will fill….not WHO he will fill it for.
You LEFTIST PINHEADED KLOWNS love to play the “race-card” every chance you get, dontcha?!!
It feels GOOD to call someone a Racist when they disagree with you, doesn’t it Rog?!!
BAD TRY===NO SALE
230,000 Pharmacists is enough to fill any prescription.
BESIDES, the DOCTORS who prescribe these MEDICINES will also be able to tell the victim which Pharmacist will fill it.
You KLOWNS are once again making a mountain out of a molehole by stretching this issue out of all sense of PROPORTION.
KLOWNS are KLUELESS about PROPORTION and MATERIALITY.
Rog–
Did you also know that Rabbit farts are the most toxic of all rodent flatulation?? Exterminating all Rabbits would definitely improve the environment you DUMB BUNNY! We’ll exterminate all of them except you of course. We need you to keep talking as a poster rabbit for the fringe lunatic left!
I had almost forgotten about this, but Bill Maher had an entertaining “New Rules” segment a little more than a year ago about activist pharmacists:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/.....html#a2476
And while I’m here, he also had a terrific segment on abstinence-only pledges:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/.....html#a2282
Well, It appears that the Pharmacist appealing his firing by Wal-Mart has lost his appeal. Seems he not only wouldn’t dispense birth control pills, but would put callers on hold indefinitely when they called in for such prescriptions, and refusing to get alternative service for those patrons who showed up in person. Wal-Mart accomodated him by a policy of having other pharmacists fill these prescriptions, but apparently this wasn’t good enough for this pro-active talibanesque pharmacist, hence his firing.
Now if memory serves me correctly, Wal-Mart historically supported pharmacists of conscience initially, to the detriment of their patrons medical needs. When faced with the prospect of financial penalties in the form of boycotts, they reversed themselves and attempted their current policy of accomodation.
It willbe interesting to follow the next twist and turn in this one.
Goldy, I need to inform you that a pharmacist can sell whatever he/she wants to sell. It’s THEIR store. Not the government’s. The owner has a duty to sell safe drugs, whatever they happen to be selling. But they do not have to sell death, just to please you.
Sorry, but that’s the way it is. I’m glad for that.
“So you pro-borts finally admit what you’ve refused to say all along: you view baby-killing as birth control.
At least you’re finally honest about it.
Commentby howcanyoubePROUDtobeanASS— 6/2/06@ 8:58 pm”
More loopy leaps of logic from good ‘ol howcanyoubePROUDtobeanevilfuckingchristianistbitch.
Misty, interesting that you would want to conflate mere commercial considerations with professional ethical obligations . By your reasoning the pharmacist convicted of selling diluted strength prescriptions, to increase his profit margin was justified and entitled, because it was THEIR store.
The weasel that he has a duty to sell ‘safe drugs’ is just that, a weasel. He is a PROFESSIONAL, He has PROFESSIONAL obligations and PROFESSIONAL restrictions. That ‘safety” is determined by others who also have a PROFESSIONAL interest and obligation in this matter.
Pharmacists are not allowed to act like willfull grade schoolers. . .they are PROFESSIONAL, licensed and CONTROLLED as such. . .not mere shopkeepers.
How interesting that you commies scream to protect the “choice” to kill your baby yet you don’t allow for anothers ‘choice” NOT to participate in that killing.
The word hypocrite comes to mind… but then so does the word ‘asshole’.
Yea ASSWIPE just like you PROLIFERS love to stand in line for a chance to jack off while some guy gets the death penalty. Go figure!
There’s a huge difference between Pro-life and ANTI-ABORTION… go see if you can figure it out.
There’s a huge difference between executing the guilty found guilty according to the law and murdering the innocent.
But for your sake, I say we just go ahead and abort Mumia Abu Jamal… we can pull his head through a small tight elastic band, pith it repeatedly with sharp scissors and suck his brain out while the rest of his body thrashes and burns in a bath of salt water.
119
We all know lefties love murderers and terrorists but kill the unborn. That is why they are democrats.
Tree Frog, you give a poor example. A diluted drug does not give the effect needed, and is therefore unsafe to give a patient, because its ineffectiveness would prolong, say, an infection. You lose. Try again.
I repeat, if a drugstore owner doesn’t want to sell death, he doesn’t have to. In fact, a whole lot of legal prescription cause their own share of destruction and death. Any doctor will tell you if you ask them.
Based on the comments here I can only come to one conclusion.
The press didn’t fully understand this ruling. They made the “morning after pill” the main focus of the ruling without looking at all of the issues…..go figure.
And almost everyone here just followed them down the same stupid path. once again go figure.
it’s no wonder why this state is so screwed up…too many people going off half cocked.
But as I progressed through college and the prospect of LSATs and law school applications drew near, I strayed from that path for a number of well thought out and not so well thought out reasons.
Translation – you flunked out.
This is about religious freedom, protected by the Constitution, and business rights. If I was a pharmacist I would not give out any birth control, even condoms. I have a religious objection to them. To me it is the same as a magazine stand refusine to sell porn, an athiest refusing to sell religious items and some one who is an Orthidox Jew refusing to sell pork. No doctor should be forced to preform an abortion and no Pharmacist should give out medication he morally objects to. And for the record, I would not issue Viagara or other such pills to someone not married or is married but is cheating on his wife,
ABORTIONS ON DEMAND FOR ALL … WHOO-HOO!
zek heil madchen goldy, why not suppress them conscience and all. You can force them out of their jobs, take their money using the courts, incarcerate them in our gulags and turn them into lamp shades. Why not have another Krystalnacht just for old time sake. That’s where you and NARAL are going aren’t you?