Pharmacists denying birth control

As long as patient care is provided for, I have no issue with a pharmacist saying no.

All I want to see is an alternative provided. I think that's reasonable, and fair.

Peace,

V-03

 

malkieD2 posted on 4/21/05 3:53am

---

In the case of an electronic prescription there isn't anything to steal. Why are you so hooked up on the property aspect ? Why don't you actually debate the point in question rather than conceed the irrelevant property aspect? [hr][/blockquote]

I am debating the point in question, but let's assume you're right: he didn't steal. What, then, did he do that tramples on the rights of others?

He never told the woman to convert to his religion, he never witnessed to her (God forbid), and he never forced her to pray to his god. How did he "force" his religious beliefs unto her?

[blockquote][hr]There's no such thing as a pharmacy owner. [hr][/blockquote]

A distributor of pharmaceutical materials, goods, and services, then. :)

[blockquote][hr]Of taxes are the root of the majority of the money the Government spends. So, perhaps I should have said that the Government was responsible for all healthcare - clearly a far superior system yo that which you enjoy. Furthermore people are completely free to live without paying taxes, but still enjoy free education and healthcare - but that's a totally different debate. [hr][/blockquote]

Oh, ok. :)

Great Britain's National Health Service (NHS) was created on July 5, 1948. As with all government programs, bureaucrats underestimated initial cost projections. First-year operating costs of NHS were 52 million pounds higher than original estimates1 as Britons saturated the so-called free system.

Many decades of shortages, misery and suffering followed until 1989, when some market-based health care competition was reintroduced to the British citizens.

[link=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/21/nhs21.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/21/ixnewstop.html]Health Care Socialization Leads to Major Underfunding in UK Hospitals[/link]

[link=http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=245732005]Millions of Scots Desert the NHS[/link]

[link=http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukfacingfinan.html]British NHS Faces Huge Crisis[/link]

[link=http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsperformance/story/0,8150,1410938,00.html]NHS Leads to Massive Waiting Lists; Some Wait Over One Year for Important Surgical Procedures[/link]

[link=http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsperformance/story/0,8150,1407503,00.html]Poor State of Socialized Health Care Leads to Severe Deficencies in Staffing[/link]

[link=http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukoutlastwinter.html]NHS Keeps Going Red Despite Overwhelming Amounts of Funding for 2005[/link]

[link=http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukpriority.html]Inefficiency Reaches New Heights as Four British Citizens Wait Over FOUR HOURS for Simple Emergenecy Advice[/link]

[link=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4173073.stm]NHS Proposal "Enhances" Health Care by Making Sure Patients Wait *Only* 12 Months to See Professional[/link]

[link=http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/personalfinance/s/133/133762_heart_patients_die_on_waiting_lists.html]The Genius of Social Health Care Leads to the Deaths of Heart Patients while They Wait for Treatment[/link]

[link=http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/smokers2.html]UK Citizens Want Smokers Banned from Acces to NHS Care[/link]...

But it's perfectly fine to have gluttons, non-exercisers, and other morons who do not take care of their bodies to mooch of the earnings of others? Give me a break.

Yeah, your health system is so incredibly superior. Do you want examples from countries other than the UK? I'd love to do Canada.

[blockquote][hr]Neither do we, unless you are willing to back that statement up. [hr][/blockquote]

:)

[blockquote][hr]No, Preachers molest little boys. Again, you are hooked on the property aspect which is an irrelevant side point. Preachers preach the word of God, often to those whom are not interested, they are also interested in adopting others into their faith and sharing t

 

All I want to see is an alternative provided. I think that's reasonable, and fair.

Even this is only a so-so comprimise. Denial of prescription is based on opinion, correct? If the pharmacist has a right to refuse service based on a subjective opinion then this debate might as well take place before Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. Alternatives are not alternatives if you don't have a choice. The patient in this case doesn't have a choice because the pharmacist made it for them. Even then, alternatives such as online pharmacies are inherently unequal.

 

birth control pills should be taken off the market alltogether. They are dangerous.

 

"These women" can go to other pharmacies, where they can find and purchase contraceptives.

That's the whole arguement - they can't if the original pharmacist refused to return or transfer their prescription.

By not returning or transfering the prescription they are preventing them getting contraceptives and thus are enforcing their anti-contraceptive beliefs on the user in question. Why can't you understand that ?

We can both easily troll google to find articles slating each others health system, but fundamentally, a "free" system that offers equal levels of health care for every single individual no matter what their background, class, colour or position in society is, is "better" than one which does not. Furthermore we also have a private system if you wish to pay for it, so in the UK we have the best of both worlds which is something you are unable to offer in the USA.

We have choice, you do not.

Furthermore :-

Although the United States spends more money than many countries, it does not always offer more health care resources than other countries. In 2000, Canada, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom all had more nurses per 1,000 residents than the United States; Germany, Sweden and France had more physicians; and Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom and France had more beds for acute care patients

Despite its higher levels of health care spending, the United States has a higher infant mortality rate that the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, and Japan.

Health insurance premiums will rise to an average of more than $14,500 for family coverage in 2006. (ouch!)

Americans? average annual out-of-pocket expenses for health care rose 26% between 1995 and 2001, to $2,182.

(from - here)

Big Brother shouldn't infringe on a pharmacist's rights to free speech and freedom of religion.

How is his religion being infringed ? Surely he's breaking his own religion by failing to help others in need ? Where does it say that giving contraceptives to others is a sin ?

All I can see is yet another overbearing fundamentalist insisting that everyone play the game by their rules, and directly preventing others from acting as they please.

 

malkieD2: I work with nurses from Canada, Great Britain, Russia, Africa, Australia and other places, and ALL of them say our system here is far superior to theirs back home.

We even have a patient here tonight who flew in from Saudi Arabia to get a liver transplant. People come in from all over the world to this hospital to get care, and that is not uncommon throughout the United States.

By not returning or transfering the prescription they are preventing them getting contraceptives and thus are enforcing their anti-contraceptive beliefs on the user in question. Why can't you understand that ?

Obviously, you lack understanding of how pharmacy works.

Pharmacists who don't fill scripts don't keep the script sheet (unless they are forged).

They give them back to the patient to go elsewhere to get their script filled.

In the private sector in the United States in a private pharmacy, people (in this case Pharmacists) have First Amendment rights which cannot be trampled upon.

This whole thread is about a scenario which very rarely occurs.

Contraceptives generally aren't a problem to get a hold of.

The real issue lies with actual pharmaceutical abortion agents, which many pharmacists will refuse to fill. It is their prerogative to refuse to do so in the private sector.

 

malkieD2: I work with nurses from Canada, Great Britain, Russia, Africa, Australia and other places, and ALL of them say our system here is far superior to theirs back home.

I've worked with Doctors and nurses around the world and they all say the system in the UK is far superior. Also Jesus Christ appeared to me in a vision and told me he felt of all the countries in the world the UK had the best health system. He was accompanied by Elvis who said that if he'd been in the UK he figured he'd still be alive.

Obviously, you lack understanding of how pharmacy works.

Yeah, I should really give that PhD I hold in Pharmacology back.

Pharmacists who don't fill scripts don't keep the script sheet (unless they are forged).

They give them back to the patient to go elsewhere to get their script filled.

I don't know if you've read the thread or not, but that is *EXACTLY* what is happening. The religious pharmacists are retaining the prescriptions for contraceptives, refusing to dispense the contraceptives, and worse still either physically holding onto the prescription or refusing to transfer them electronically to another pharmacy.

To refresh you here is the original article which clearly states :-

"There are many incidences of pharmacists not giving back the prescription so that the women can fill it somewhere else."

Contraceptives generally aren't a problem to get a hold of.

Yeah, this 300 post thread, and all the articles linked to their-in are purely hot air

The real issue lies with actual pharmaceutical abortion agents

Not in this thread it isn't.

 

I've worked with Doctors and nurses around the world and they all say the system in the UK is far superior. Also Jesus Christ appeared to me in a vision and told me he felt of all the countries in the world the UK had the best health system. He was accompanied by Elvis who said that if he'd been in the UK he figured he'd still be alive.

Ah. Immature trite sarcasm adds nothing of value to a discussion.

It's also rather boring.

You started your tirade with the inferiority of our system when compared to your own. That's funny considering every RN that I've come across from the UK (and I've come across many at conventions and otherwise here, and I was on the Louisiana State Board of Student Nurses when in college) disagree with you.

Yeah, I should really give that PhD I hold in Pharmacology back.

I'd like to know where you got your degree, or do you simply work in research and not in retail?

You should know (of course) that the law in your country isn't the law in mine.

My fiancee works in the retail sector and is nearly finished her Doctorate in Pharmacy (finishes next May) as a Pharm.D. She works continually in a pharmacy and knows the law. She's worked in the field for 6 years, and I get the information from her legal information relevant to the standards of care by the Lousiana State Board of Pharmacy and the law of this State.

I can assure you, it doesn't work that way here in the in this State, if not most States in the Union.

Pharmacists in my State don't keep scripts they refuse to fill unless they are forged scripts or there is a legal problem with it. At least they shouldn't.

They are supposed to refer the patient to another pharmacy.

The religious pharmacists are retaining the prescriptions for contraceptives, refusing to dispense the contraceptives, and worse still either physically holding onto the prescription or refusing to transfer them electronically to another pharmacy.

In the legal sense of the US, pharmacists who refuse to fill should give the scripts back to the patient to go elsewhere if they are legal scripts.

Again, that's how it works in my State.

Pharmacists are within their rights to refuse to dispense contraceptives in a private pharmacy.

What is referred to in the BBC article is very rare and isolated incidents not reflective of a widespread problem, so the article is misleading. It is also biased in typical BBC fashion. The article also states 'many incidents' without referring to a specific one where the individual didn't get their script back, only that they were refused service.

The woman who wanted the 'morning after abortion pill' cannot demand from a pharmacist in the private sector that he fill it. The pharmacist was well within his legal rights to refuse such service, and it's too bad the woman was humiliated. It's not the pharmacist's problem that he is upholding his First Amendment rights not to be forced to dispense abortion agents against the core doctrines of his faith.

The law is clear: Pharmacists have the absolute right of refusal of service in the private sector.

Maybe it isn't that way where you live malkieD2, but it is here. We have a little thing called the Bill of Rights which trumps anyone else's right to force you to commit a heinous violation of your faith. It's one of the reasons we separated from the British Empire, to allow for religious freedom.

EDIT: I'm in sort of a hurry at the moment posting imbetween things. I'll be able to respond more thoroughly (and probably a bit less rushed) when I get home...

 

Ah. Immature trite sarcasm adds nothing of value to a discussion.

Neither does anecdotal evidence, yet your entire arguement is based on that.

Pharmacists in my State are don't keep scripts they refuse to fill unless they are forged scripts or there is a legal problem with it. At least they shouldn't.

You are correct - they shouldn't but they do, which is the point of this thread.

What is referred to in the BBC article is very rare and isolated incidents not reflective of a widespread problem, so the article is misleading. It is also biased in typical BBC fashion.

The article also states 'many incidents' without referring to a specific one where the individual didn't get their script back, they merely were
refused service.

DM - take time and please read through the thread, and read the countless articles and specific incidents that have been discussed *before* saying something like that. The BBC article is what started this thread, but is not the basis of every arguement here.

You started your tirade with the inferiority of our system when compared to your own.

No, I certainly did not - please actually take the time to read the thread before making accusations like that. Comparisons of healthcare systems is a totally seperate, almost irrelevant point. The only reason it became part of the discussion is the point out the difference of state governed pharmacies verus privately governed pharmacies.

Please focus on the point at hand.

 

No, I certainly did not - please actually take the time to read the thread before making accusations like that.

No, he's talking about your tirade, not your earlier posts.

The only reason it became part of the discussion is the point out the difference of state governed pharmacies verus privately governed pharmacies.

Right, but since your statement regarding said institutions was so fallaciously erroneous, we felt the need to prolong this aspect of the debate.

I'm feeling rather naseous by your posts; I think I'll go see a doctor, who will see me tommorrow, and not in 12 months. Ciao!

 

Ladies and gentlemen, let's not get personal, ok?. This thread has done very well so far, it would be a shame if it had to be anesthetized.

V-03

 

Speaking of Anesthesia, V03, I could use some Dilaudid IV after this past week of work...

heh

 

This thread has done very well so far, it would be a shame if it had to be anesthetized.

Puns in the Senate are grounds for banning I thought ?

Speaking of Anesthesia, V03, I could use some Dilaudid IV after this past week of work...

You won't hold out on us too will you ?

I think I'll go see a doctor, who will see me tommorrow, and not in 12 months

Sorry, but that's baiting - pure and simple, as is describing my posts as "naseous" (I presume you mean nauseous, but I could be wrong).

So, this was evoked by me saying "So, perhaps I should have said that the Government was responsible for all healthcare - clearly a far superior system you that which you enjoy", however that was in response to you describing our doctors, pharmacists, and surgeons as "sub-standard". You brought the quality of service into question, not me.

I feel I'm perfectly entitled to describe our system as superior because we have a public system as well as a private system. You can pay for medical insurance in the UK just as you do in the USA, then claim on it for private healthcare. Best of both worlds.

(Tales from America - My buddy ruptured his spleen in a rugby game, and was admitted to hospital, however his insurance company failed to cover the costs because he wasn't referred to the hospital by his GP. Another friend had her impacted wisdom teeth removed, then her insurance company (who had promised to cover it) refused to pay up. All anecdotal evidence I know, but that sort of thing simply doesn't happen here).

It's an impossible arguement to solve. I could (and have) posted data about costs, number of beds, infant mortality rates etc, and you've posted articles about NHS waiting lists etc. I think for the purposes of this thread that debate has to be moved-on from. Only reason it was ever mentioned was the differing Government involvement in the healthcare system.

I mentioned this debate to some medic colleagues of mine over lunch today (um, obviously not mentioning it was an internet debate ), and they were completely appalled by the attitude and behaviour of these pharmacists. Clearly the difference between our two socities, and their differing opinions of the roles various medical professionals should play.

At this point I was going to use the Hypocratic Oath as evidence in my defense, but having reread it I don't think I will . It starts off well " I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone" (ie, being pregnant is more of a health risk than contraception, however it continues "Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion. " (oopsie ) and furthermore "which ought not to be spread abroad". Of course, what place does an ancient scripture have in society today ?

I didn't intend to offend, and I certainly wasn't trying to make it personal with anyone.

I don't think a Pharmacist has any right to be preventing people getting the drugs that they require - it simply isn't their job. That's my opinion, and it isn't an opinion which is subject to your constitution.

 

Before I retire for the day (I work nights), I hope you can understand that the US Constitution guarantees the rights of public citizens not to be forced by the government to violate their core values at someone else's behest.

In the American view (and in the law) that is tyranny at the expense of liberty.

The Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment for this very purpose: to protect people from an intrusive government forcing their will on you above your religious liberty.

There is no right in the United States for someone else to force you to violate core tenets of your faith because they want something from you.

 

That's fair enough - I just don't think religion should play a part in the running of society.

 

Well, there's no way to avoid that, but there should not be absolutes on either side.

Peace,

V-03

 

I disagree because you can't prove religion. According to these pharmacists beliefs contraception is "wrong" - now that's a perfectly acceptable opinion to hold, however you cannot prove that contraception is "wrong" - it is simply a belief.

Religion exists, as does faith, but there's absolutely no way to prove that one religion is any better than another, and no way to show that any relgious belief is "true".

Because of those problems I don't think religion should play a part in the running of society.







I hypothetical I posted earlier was - when I worked for the US Government, could I have claimed that working on a Monday was against my religion, and there would be been no way the Government could have forced me to come to work? And if they did I could sue them claiming they were infringing my right to religious freedom ?

 

I disagree because you can't prove religion. According to these pharmacists beliefs contraception is "wrong" - now that's a perfectly acceptable opinion to hold, however you cannot prove that contraception is "wrong" - it is simply a belief.


If you substitute the word "murder" for "contraception" your statement falls appart.

 

Yes, but fortunately your example is not only wrong, but foolish. There is no murder taking place with contraception.

 

I hypothetical I posted earlier was - when I worked for the US Government, could I have claimed that working on a Monday was against my religion, and there would be been no way the Government could have forced me to come to work? And if they did I could sue them claiming they were infringing my right to religious freedom ?

That greatly depends on whether you have a history of professing that belief or not, and how you claim it.

For example, if I were to claim that my church (the LDS Church, or Mormons) teaches not to work on Mondays, then I would probably not be very successful. While I could find a few statements that could support it (referring to a recommended church program called Family Home Evening), and a church policy of not having church activities on Mondays (to allow uninterrupted time for FHE), it would be near impossible to demonstrate that the Church actually teaches not to work on Mondays.

Similarly, if you had a history of working on Mondays for previous employers, then it would be a lot more difficult to demonstrate that it actually is your belief that you shouldn't work on Mondays.

Essentially, you would have to demonstrate that you are sincere in this belief. Even then. the government would more likely make alternative arrangements (allowing you to work Saturday, for example).

None of that holds, though, in this case. In the case of contraception, there are quite a few churches that teach that some forms of contraception are essentially a form of abortion, and that abortion is a form of murder. There is a lot more evidence to support them in their belief.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Contraception is legal, whereas murder is not - your point doesn't really stand up.

Some people believe in the word of God, some people follow the words of Allah, neither can prove nor disprove each other's beliefs hence no set of beliefs could ever be described as "true". Furthermore, Christians argue between themselves on who follows the correct word of God, without actually having ever conferred with him over the matter.

Given this inability to justify religious beliefs I really can't see why they should play a role in running society.

Someone please answer my hypothetical work question above please

 

Someone please answer my hypothetical work question above please

I thought I just did, in my post right above you.

Kimball Kinnison

 

That greatly depends on whether you have a history of professing that belief or not, and how you claim it.

I think this is an important point, one which is also being forgotten in the debate.

Many governmental agencies, as well as private companies, are quite willing to accomodate personal beliefs. The determining factor is how and when they are presented.

If a person joins an accounting firm, for example, and they had a sincere belief not to work on Mondays, nothing is wrong with them bringing it up during the negoiation phase. Maybe the company can trade a Saturday for the person's Monday. Maybe the person would be willing to work an extra 2 hours on the other days...Maybe the company can't accomodate the person's request.

The department I work at, for example, considers continuing education to be important. As a result, one can attend classes during duty with pay. There is a limit on the amount per week, but the only stipulation is that you have to provide your upcoming class schedule before the term starts. I'd bet that if a person had a sincere desire to attend church, if they presented it in the same way, they'd get their 2 hours on Sunday.

Even the military still allows conscientious objectors, if they work within the system. If, at the time of contract, a person professes such a belief, the military will put that person in a non-combat slot, if any are available.

Is there a practical, or even fundamental difference between a person taking Mondays off because of a class, or taking Mondays off because of a religious belief? Because some people seem to want to seperate religious beliefs from all others.

The point of such examples is that the ultimate determination should fall on the person and the company in question, there is no reason why the government should get involved.

 

In the case of contraception, there are quite a few churches that teach that some forms of contraception are essentially a form of abortion, and that abortion is a form of murder. There is a lot more evidence to support them in their belief.


What pray tell, Kimball, is this "evidence"?

It certainly isn't scientific or medical where contraceptives are concerned, because morning-after pills are designed to prevent the stage of implantation, which is prior to when medical convention holds that pregnancy begins. A church may teach otherwise, but that is faith, not evidence. Legal precedent in this country has consistently upheld that full "personhood" is not granted at the moment of conception, whether or not a belief that this is when life begins exists.

It is this separation that legally prevents healthcare givers from cherry-picking which services they wish to provide. Although I disagree with malkied2 that religion shouldn't play a part in it (because clearly in the US it does; this is a fact of life), I also do not belief that a faith-based precept is grounds for abrogating a scientific fact, especially where the rights of others are involved.

If a pharmacist doesn't want to fulfill a prescription, fine, he or she should allow that person to seek service from another. But let's not confuse the terminology here. Contraceptives are not abortifacients. What one gives to induce a chemical abortion for a bona fide pregnancy is far different from what one would give as part of a "morning-after" regimen. High-dose contraceptives will prevent pregnancy in many cases; to induce an abortion, methotrexate or mifepristone combined with misoprostol is needed.

Peace,

V-03

 

Kimball_Kinnison posted on 4/23/05 7:00am

---

I thought I just did, in my post right above you.
[hr][/blockquote]

You did nicely thanks :) Post times are close together, I was probably typing that as you posted your answer.

[blockquote][link=http://boards.theforce.net/user.asp?usr=Mr44][b][hl=DarkKhaki][color=Maroon] Mr44[/color][/hl][/b][/link] [b]posted on 4/23/05 7:17am[/b][hr]Even the military still allows conscientious objectors, if they work within the system.
[hr][/blockquote]

That's a much more realistic example than the one I used.

[blockquote][link=http://boards.theforce.net/user.asp?usr=Kimball_Kinnison][b][hl=Black][color=BlueViolet] Kimball_Kinnison[/color][/hl][/b][/link] [b]posted on 4/23/05 6:48am[/b][hr]In the case of contraception, there are quite a few churches that teach that some forms of contraception are essentially a form of abortion, and that abortion is a form of murder. [hr][/blockquote]

I need to avoid using the word "wrong" here, but preventing pregnancy really shouldn't even be considered murder. Having sex in a way which will not result in pregnancy might be against various religious beliefs, but it can't and shouldn't be described as murder.

[blockquote][link=http://boards.theforce.net/user.asp?usr=Vaderize03][i][b][hl=Black][color=Blue] Vaderize03[/color][/hl][/b][/i][/link] [b]posted on 4/23/05 10:03am[/b][hr]Although I disagree with [b]malkied2[/b] that religion shouldn't play a part in it (because clearly in the US it [i]does[/i]; this is a fact of life), I also do not belief that a faith-based precept is grounds for abrogating a scientific fact, especially where the rights of others are involved. [hr][/blockquote]

I absolutely agree that in the USA religion really does come into the day-to-day running of society - I lived there, I know ;) My arguement is that it causes so many problems and friction that running society without involving religion would surely make for an easier life.

Religion doesn't come into play in the UK [i]that[/i] often. There aren't massive pro-life demonstrations, homosexuality really isn't frowned upon, and pharmacists fill the prescription when asked.

I'm not saying my opinion is "right" or "better", I just personally think it would make life easier, which is ultimately for the good of the country.

[b]edit[/b]

I can't see a positive reason for allowing religion to dictate the ideology of society because it's roots are based in folklore. (note, I'm not saying religion is bad, just argueing it's place in society)