K
Karin
Guest
That is ok…no harm no foul
- Status
D
dafalax
Guest
I think pharmacists should still work to become pharmacists even in the face of the birth control controversy because a pharmacist is a noble profession. Pharmacists fill prescription to help people get well and heal. Birth control pills do not heal; most often they abort unborn children. In cases where they are prescribed for things like irregular periods, they still do not heal, merely mask the symptoms. A pharmacist should be able to refuse to fill a BC prescription because it does not interfere with the purpose of a pharmacist.
W
wabrams
Guest
Really? If someone needs the pill for indometriosis and the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription, are they not causing that person harm? Doesn’t that interfere with their purpose?
D
dafalax
Guest
There are better ways to deal with endometriosis than BC. Pro-life doctors specialize with issues such as these. all.org is a good resource for that. Furthermore, most cases of endometriosis improve after pregnancy. Not that you should have a child just to get better. But people prescribe birth control pills way too often for things, and BC is not a cure. For anything. Except life in unborn children. And endometriosis is also not fatal.
C
CARose
Guest
As I tried to state previously, endometreosis is not cured by taking the Pill. As another poster correctly stated, it merely masks the symptoms of a problem that can result in infertility if not correctly treated. Also, if it is the case that the person taking the pill is not abstaining from marital relations (as is far too frequent in our secular society, even among those who aren’t married), they run the risk of aborting tiny, unknown babies. A pharmacist should NEVER be forced to take the risk of participating in the killing of another human being.
Knowing what we now know about Nazi Germany, there are not many who would argue that the French Resistance was wrong in working against the law of the land to undermine the Nazi’s in their country. The sympathies tend to lie in favor of those who worked on the underground railroad in the Civil War times in the US. These couragous people were willing to go against the law of the land, and in some cases, the prevailing wisdom of their communities to stand up for that which they knew to be right. There were even cases where someone was using their employment as a ruse for helping these causes.
The pharmacist who choses not to fill requests for the birth control pill is doing his moral duty.
CARose
Knowing what we now know about Nazi Germany, there are not many who would argue that the French Resistance was wrong in working against the law of the land to undermine the Nazi’s in their country. The sympathies tend to lie in favor of those who worked on the underground railroad in the Civil War times in the US. These couragous people were willing to go against the law of the land, and in some cases, the prevailing wisdom of their communities to stand up for that which they knew to be right. There were even cases where someone was using their employment as a ruse for helping these causes.
The pharmacist who choses not to fill requests for the birth control pill is doing his moral duty.
CARose
W
wabrams
Guest
So it’s ok for the pharmacist to overstep their bounds and not prescribe something because *they *think there might be something better out there for the person getting their prescription filled, even though the pharmicist no next to nothing about their medical condition? And it can be fatal depending on the severity of it.
W
wabrams
Guest
But you are not answering the question: does a pharmacist have a right to NOT fulfill a BC prescription if he doesn’t know one way or the other is it is being used to treat something or for BC?
K
Karin
Guest
A pharmacist does not overstep any bounds…he or she can not PRESCRIBE any medication only a doctor can do that…all they can do is FILL the prescription or not fill it!
K
Karin
Guest
Several people have answered this:banghead: …Yes, they do not have to fill a prescription for BC without knowing what it is for…it is their RIGHT!!
C
CARose
Guest
webrams:
YES! The pharmacist who refuses to dispense the birth control pill, regardless of the intent for which it will be used, is morally correct in that refusal.
There is a risk that it may result in the death of a child. Its efficacy in medical uses does not outweigh this risk. It is better to err (if err is even happening) on the side of prudence.
CARose
Apparently I wasn’t clear.
YES! The pharmacist who refuses to dispense the birth control pill, regardless of the intent for which it will be used, is morally correct in that refusal.
There is a risk that it may result in the death of a child. Its efficacy in medical uses does not outweigh this risk. It is better to err (if err is even happening) on the side of prudence.
CARose
W
wabrams
Guest
But refusing to fill a presciption a patient needs b/c there might be somehting better out there (as several posters have said), os overstepping their bounds.
C
CARose
Guest
Not if they recognize their moral obligation to prevent the risk of killing of an innocent child.
CARose
CARose
W
wabrams
Guest
Glad to know you two think it’s ok for a pharmicist to assume why you are taking a medication or deceide that you really don’t need that medication. I hope neither of you have to have an anti-depressants prescription filled and get a Scientologist pharmacist who refuses to fill it becuase they believe it is bumpkis.
W
wabrams
Guest
that’s a cop-out when it also has other medicinal uses, regardless if there are other treatments.
K
Karin
Guest
NOPE…your wrong. IF the pharmacists believes BC is MORALLY WRONG for any reason they do not have to stock it hence they do not need to sell it or fill a prescription for it!
W
wabrams
Guest
Prove it then.
C
CARose
Guest
If I had need for a medication that the local pharmacist was unwilling to fill, I would find another pharmacist to fill it. I live in a small town, so I know that can be a hardship. But it is what I would do in the scenario you present.
The pharmacist should not be required to go against his conscience.
The pill is a serious problem, as it masks the underlying problems of such things as endometreosis, allowing the damage to progress and increasing the likelihood of permanent sterility. Proper treatment for the condition can cure it permanently. Also, as one poster stated, simply being open to life (assuming you are married and this is an option) can bring endometreosis under control.
I admit, we are not in agreement on this issue.
CARose
The pharmacist should not be required to go against his conscience.
The pill is a serious problem, as it masks the underlying problems of such things as endometreosis, allowing the damage to progress and increasing the likelihood of permanent sterility. Proper treatment for the condition can cure it permanently. Also, as one poster stated, simply being open to life (assuming you are married and this is an option) can bring endometreosis under control.
I admit, we are not in agreement on this issue.
CARose
K
Karin
Guest
Glad to know you two think it’s ok for a pharmicist to assume why you are taking a medication or deceide that you really don’t need that medication. I hope neither of you have to have an anti-depressants prescription filled and get a Scientologist pharmacist who refuses to fill it becuase they believe it is bumpkis.
Once again…YOU DO HAVE AN OPTION…see if you can follow…
If Pharmacists A refuses to sell or fill a prescription (for whatever BC, Steroids, CHEMO) you go to Pharmacists B and he or she may fill it …if not you go to Pharmacists C… so on so forth.
W
wabrams
Guest
Oh yeah, thats a given.
C
CARose
Guest
See, I knew we could find some common ground!
CARose
CARose
- Status