Board: Druggists can't refuse prescriptions

  • Thread starter Thread starter a_priori
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

a_priori

Guest
SEATTLE - Druggists who believe “morning-after” birth control pills are tantamount to abortion can’t stand in the way of a patient’s right to the drugs, state regulators have decided.

In a unanimous vote Thursday, the state Board of Pharmacy ruled that drug stores have a duty to fill lawful prescriptions despite an individual pharmacist’s personal objections to any particular medication.

Pharmacists or drug stores that violate the rules could face discipline from the board, which has the power to revoke state licenses."

msnbc.msn.com/id/18090057/
 
Another example of Positive Law contradicting Natural Law. Secular Relativism running amock
 
Mirdath said:
How is ‘do the job we pay you to do’ relativist? It’s capitalist.
Click to expand...
Some people study for years to acquire expertise in a certain discipline in order to heal. Then someone tells them that rules have changed and that they must destroy. People whose daily lives are informed by such strange concepts as right and wrong sometimes have trouble with this kind of thing.
 
Mirdath said:
How is ‘do the job we pay you to do’ relativist? It’s capitalist.
Click to expand...
The Pharmacy Board does not pay pharmacists, they regulate them. So you can take capitalism out of this equation.
 
Mirdath said:
How is ‘do the job we pay you to do’ relativist? It’s capitalist.
Click to expand...
It is called “you do not have any rights to your morals”.

Also, by saying you cannot be a Pharmacist because you will not commit infanticide, is discrimination against religion. Secuar relativists are afraid of religion.
 
a_priori said:
SEATTLE - In a unanimous vote Thursday, the state Board of Pharmacy ruled that drug stores have a duty to fill lawful prescriptions despite an individual pharmacist’s personal objections to any particular medication.

Pharmacists or drug stores that violate the rules could face discipline from the board, which has the power to revoke state licenses."

msnbc.msn.com/id/18090057/
Click to expand...
how idiotic, drugstores refuse to accept prescriptions all the time: they don’t have it in stock, your insurance doesn’t cover it, you can’t pay for it, they don’t carry that drug anymore. I am off 2 meds I had been taking when I came here because drugstores here don’t stock them and won’t order them for one person. Guess I will go wave this story in their faces and demand they do so.
 
I have wondered. If everyone that held onto their firmly held moral beliefs how would the “helping” world look? How many druggists are against this “your moral or religious rights are not allowed” regulation? How many people are forced to pay for these drugs directly or indirectly even though they are against our strongly held beliefs?

Catholic Hospitals are forced to go out of business if they are true to the faith. Some are selling to secular giants so services can still be provided to the community and at what cost? Some are allowing immoral treatments to stay in business and saying “it is how we can do good” the old evil to do good. Traditional Christians are forced to get out of the medical fields and helping fields due to their beliefs.

Are your insurance rates based partly on IVF, fertility treatments, abortion services, “birth-control” prescriptions, pre-bodily death transplants (murder for body parts) and many of the other immoral wants of others.

If a Dr does not want to be involved with abortion or euthanasia or any other situation they find immoral they are told they can into a field that they are not exposed to this.

I was once asked to sign a release at a podiatrist office that I understand they take all measures in case of emergency to resuscitate. OK I was informed and I could go there or not. Why can’t those that desire the service go to places that will provide them with the service?

Why are all forced to provide the service and keep costly meds that kill in stock in case someone wants it? It should be my choice and right to go to a pharmacy, hospital or other health service provider that I personally believe with do what I feel is morally right. I had to wait for two days to get an anti-biotic that I needed for a lung infection and there was no recourse but to wait for it. So I see no lasting harm in the ability that would enable a physician or druggiest to refer a patient to someplace they can get the product or service they desire or need.

There could be a listing at the Dr’s office that they can choose from and we can choose from. This would allow us all to have a free choice of what we are willing to do or not do.

I would find in a wonderful thing to have a Faithful Catholic Hospital that followed the teachings of Holy Mother
Church where I can get the care I need and still be faithful to my faith. I would also find it wonderful to find a Dr and druggiest that do the same thing, But alas those days are no longer possible and for that I mourn.
 
puzzleannie said:
how idiotic, drugstores refuse to accept prescriptions all the time: they don’t have it in stock, your insurance doesn’t cover it, you can’t pay for it, they don’t carry that drug anymore. I am off 2 meds I had been taking when I came here because drugstores here don’t stock them and won’t order them for one person. Guess I will go wave this story in their faces and demand they do so.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the Texas drugstores are going to be impressed by a ruling of the Washington Board of Pharmacy.

The field of pharmacy is regulated by the states; some states require pharmacists to fill prescriptions given to them regardless of their moral objections, other states forbid the firing of pharmacists who have a religious basis for refusing to do part of their job.

A search will turn up a few past threads along these lines.
 
I have mixed feelings about this ruling. Here’s why. It is my understanding that if a Catholic woman was raped, and she hadn’t ovulated yet, it would be morally correct for her to take this pill. Now let’s say that the pharmacist refused to give this pill to her, and it took her a couple of days to find a pharmacist who would give it to her. By the time she gets this pill, her egg has already been fertilized and an early abortion happens.

For this reason, I’m wondering if it is better for people to make their own moral decisions about this pill rather than having a pharmacist make it for them. This pill is not nearly as bad as RU-486. In the majority of cases, my understanding is that it prevents pregnancy by preventing ovulation. Once the fertilized egg attaches, it will not cause an abortion.

I have also heard that this is a horrible pill that causes women to throw up. If this is true, I don’t think that any woman would use it like it was a piece of candy or something.

I will acknowledge that my opinion could be wrong, but I thought I would state it for what it’s worth.
 
Listener said:
I have mixed feelings about this ruling. Here’s why. It is my understanding that if a Catholic woman was raped, and she hadn’t ovulated yet, it would be morally correct for her to take this pill. Now let’s say that the pharmacist refused to give this pill to her, and it took her a couple of days to find a pharmacist who would give it to her. By the time she gets this pill, her egg has already been fertilized and an early abortion happens.
Click to expand...
The understanding more prevalent here is that the woman is morally obligated to, for lack of a better phrase, man up and take it – under pain of mortal sin and latae sententiae excommunication. And somehow only the rape would rest on the man’s soul in such a case.
I have also heard that this is a horrible pill that causes women to throw up. If this is true, I don’t think that any woman would use it like it was a piece of candy or something.
Click to expand...
Standard antibiotics make me vomit. Drugs aren’t candy and shouldn’t be treated as such no matter how small an effect they’re supposed to have.
 
Digitonomy said:
I don’t think the Texas drugstores are going to be impressed by a ruling of the Washington Board of Pharmacy.

.
Click to expand...
the state is irrelevant, I am criticizing the basis for the ruling. You can’t tell me every pharmacy in Washington is required to stock and provide every drug in the pharmacopia on the off chance somebody will walk in off the street with an Rx and demand it.
 
puzzleannie said:
the state is irrelevant, I am criticizing the basis for the ruling. You can’t tell me every pharmacy in Washington is required to stock and provide every drug in the pharmacopia on the off chance somebody will walk in off the street with an Rx and demand it.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. It would be nice if we had a Washington pharmacist to comment on this.
 
Listener said:
I have mixed feelings about this ruling. Here’s why. It is my understanding that if a Catholic woman was raped, and she hadn’t ovulated yet, it would be morally correct for her to take this pill. Now let’s say that the pharmacist refused to give this pill to her, and it took her a couple of days to find a pharmacist who would give it to her. By the time she gets this pill, her egg has already been fertilized and an early abortion happens.

For this reason, I’m wondering if it is better for people to make their own moral decisions about this pill rather than having a pharmacist make it for them. This pill is not nearly as bad as RU-486. In the majority of cases, my understanding is that it prevents pregnancy by preventing ovulation. Once the fertilized egg attaches, it will not cause an abortion.

I have also heard that this is a horrible pill that causes women to throw up. If this is true, I don’t think that any woman would use it like it was a piece of candy or something.

I will acknowledge that my opinion could be wrong, but I thought I would state it for what it’s worth.
Click to expand...
I live in Washington and have followed this story for the past few months. The only reason the board passed this is because the governor (who by the way is Catholic) threatened to fire the members of the board if they didn’t change their ruling. By the way if a pharmacist didn’t believe in this pill because it was against his/her religion, the pharmacist next to him could give it to her. Also the person could easily get it on the Internet in no time. That is not the point. The pill is bad and morally wrong. But the governor wants to take morals out of Washington. It is so sad to see this ruling past. We pro-lifers in Washington have been fighting this ruling. If Dino Rossi was voted in (which he was but Christine Gregoire wanted a recount two times until she won by a few hundred votes) this wouldn’t have happened!
 
puzzleannie said:
the state is irrelevant, I am criticizing the basis for the ruling. You can’t tell me every pharmacy in Washington is required to stock and provide every drug in the pharmacopia on the off chance somebody will walk in off the street with an Rx and demand it.
Click to expand...
Here is the new rule for pharmacies. There was also a new rule for pharmacists, which I think was more the topic of the OP.

As to your specific question, it appears that a Washington pharmacy could give an equivalent drug, or contact the prescribing physician to see if an alternative is appropriate, or even return your prescription and refer you to another pharmacy if they can’t fill it in a timely manner. From the wording, it appears that there may have been a problem in the past with prescriptions being destroyed by the uncooperative pharmacies.

Although the rule does not specifically state this, my interpretation is that if you were willing to wait a few days for an order to arrive, the pharmacy would be required to order for you any medication they didn’t have on hand. Probably they could get away with charging extra for this service, but how much is typically governed under the law by what is “reasonable.”

Texas is a fair bit more conservative than Washington, so without as much government regulation in this area, you are probably stuck with pharmacies that can essentially tell you to go fly a kite.
 
Catholics should not be forced to violate their religious beliefs under any circumstances, no ifs, ands, or buts.
No one should.
When you force a person to violate his conscience,
you have just created a sociopath.

Liberals are very open minded — IF you agree with THEIR views.
 
Jaypeeto3 said:
Liberals are very open minded — IF you agree with THEIR views.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
So much for free exercise of religion on the left coast. Perhaps some of the morally upstanding pharmacists from beyond the Rockies will want to relocate to Texas and help bolster at least one state where we believe in freedom and morality.
 
Mirdath said:
How is ‘do the job we pay you to do’ relativist?
Click to expand...
What “Job we pay you to do?”

If the pharmacist is an employee, that’s between him and his employer. If the pharmicist is a small businessman, it’s his business, not the state or the boards.

Should hardware and sporting goods stores be forced to sell guns and ammuntion?
Mirdath said:
It’s capitalist.
Click to expand...
No, capitalism would say, “Sell or don’t sell – it’s up to you. If you go broke based on your decision, that’s your problem.”
 
vern_humphrey said:
What “Job we pay you to do?”

If the pharmacist is an employee, that’s between him and his employer. If the pharmicist is a small businessman, it’s his business, not the state or the boards.

Should hardware and sporting goods stores be forced to sell guns and ammuntion?

No, capitalism would say, “Sell or don’t sell – it’s up to you. If you go broke based on your decision, that’s your problem.”
Click to expand...
👍
 
I really hope a Muslim pharmacist claims discrimination on this. What a quandry that would put the state in. It seems that it is OK to discriminate against Christians but Muslims are another story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top