If only these pills were available in Kenya 47 years ago when a stupid white American woman realized she married a black polygamist and alcoholic.

#1 | Posted by cookfish

Poor, poor, cockfisher-it's gonna be a loooooooooong 7 and a half years for him.......

So Catholics pharmacists might be prosecuted for obeying their religion? I can't wait for this one to go to the highest court. Now the left wants to coerce violation of conscience.

"So Catholics pharmacists might be prosecuted for obeying their religion?"

That depends. Does my Christian Scientist mailman have the right to refuse to deliver my prescription medications? Can my vegetarian waiter refuse to serve me filet mignon? Who all gets a veto in your society?

I don't have a problem with adults or minors (with their guardian's OK) using the morning after pill but if a pharmacy owner doesn't want to stock it for whatever reason that should be their right.

So Danforth, you believe "I was only following orders" is a viable excuse for an Auschwitz guard? It is the same logic. Orders from superiors mean your conscience is no longer burdened? We Catholics must obey?
You are addicted to contrary, Danny. Take a happy pill or just step back and look at your need to bark and snarl without any effort to appreciate someone else's view.
If they think it is killing, then they deserve the same legal respect Quakers do when they refuse to carry weapons in the service. No different.

"We Catholics must obey?"

You'd have no qualms if it's shooting someone in the military. Similarly, if you don't like the job requirements, don't apply for the job.

Again, should Christian Scientist mailmen get the same veto? Please answer.

Someone already had the pharmacy job, Dannyboy. They want to keep their conscience. Nice evasion of my basic question: Do you believe in a government forcing people to do something they equate with killing? Just answer that.
Christian Scientists have no qualms about other people taking medicine so your example is not relevant. You would FORCE me to commit an act I think is killing. Then you would come here and post about freedom, equality, brotherhoood blah blah like a true political two-face.
And are you trying to say Catholics who believe now must not be doctors or pharmacists unless they are willing to violate their religion? Ever actually READ the 1st Amendment??
You are amazing for your shallowness, Danny! I really wonder how you got that way. Hope you can climb out of that hole.

"Ever actually READ the 1st Amendment??"

The right to be a pharmacist may not be infringed upon?

That'd be news to most Americans.

By the way, the west coast court is the most overturned in the nation for the past couple of decades. When this gets to the highest court, it will be reversed and Dannyboy will be whining that the courts had no right to while he is jeering here the courts had a right to.....hypocrisy is the left's family tree.
I am actually glad this is now forced upstairs. It will protect me from leftist ideologues who would force me out of professions like pharmacy or medicine based on my religion. Screw those dictators.

The right to be protected from government coercion against my conscience, truthset. If I think something is equal to killing, do you think the government has the right to force me to do that? We don't treat Mennonites and Quakers that way in the military. Why is my religion different?

"Someone already had the pharmacy job, Dannyboy."

And they knew what pills were or could be available, and they knew what the job required.

"Do you believe in a government forcing people to do something they equate with killing?"

Yes; they do it all the time. And a little dramatic, wouldn't you say? No one is forcing anything. The pharmacist can leave at any time.

"Christian Scientists have no qualms about other people taking medicine so your example is not relevant."

But if MY Christian Scientist mailman had a problem, would you want to honor his beliefs, or would you force him to do something he equates with killing?

"are you trying to say Catholics who believe now must not be doctors or pharmacists unless they are willing to violate their religion?"

No, I'm saying there are lots of things in the medical field other than women's reproductive health, if you don't want to perform abortions.

"Ever actually READ the 1st Amendment??"

Yes, I have. What passage, specifically, refers to pharmacists being able to refuse to do their jobs?

"Hope you can climb out of that hole."

You first. Show me that 1st amendment passage.

My religion doesn't allow women to drive, go to school, or walk alone by themselves in public so I don't have to sell women walking shoes, driver licenses, tires, oil, gas, or any kind of book.

My name is diablo

"The right to be protected from government coercion against my conscience, truthset. "

What a pile of crap. Government routinely takes over when some religious wacko claims its her right to watch her baby die instead of taking medical care.

"The right to be protected from government coercion against my conscience, truthset. "

Sorry but denying your PUBLIC service is denying the woman her right to obtain a legal product not available on the open shelf.

Your voice is spouting for more rights over another and that isn't how our country works.

I love this!! The lefties are showing who they really are: people who quack about freedom while drooling over the prospect of denying employment to those they hate: the religious. Only their bigotry is NEVER bigotry.
I am saving your posts on this thread for when you try to convince anyone later on you want "equal opportuniy" or the "right to conscience." what a crew of hypocrites.
If I believe a product kills and I refuse to sell it, the government can go pound sand. If true for cigarettes, true for morning after pills.

Religion has nothing to do with this....last I remember religion is a personal endeavor and despensing the pill effects ones faith zero.

Maybe the woman in the end decided NOT to take the pill, that it seems to be her right.

I can buy a bible and choose NOT to read it but you don't get to choose if I don't believe and not sell me the bible.

Now let me be clear here, I am not anti-abortion nor pro-abortion.......IT IS NOT MY DECISION TO MAKE, it is the decision of the LEGAL individual to make.

"those they hate: the religious."

Nice try, but I think the soda jerk who refuses to serve Colas should be fired, too. It has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with giving someone else in life a veto over a decision made by you and your doctor, merely because the product is dispensed in a regulated manner. Pharmacists are there as buffers between doctors and patients, not as primary decision-makers.

But in regards to religion, you've got it backwards: the only reason you're giving someone derelict in their duty a pass is because he's doing something that agrees with your religion.

But Dannyboy, YOU are the one saying I can't be a pharmacist. You just can't conceive (pun intended) you might be the fascist.
And moneywar seems to think only someone's else's decision of conscience matters, not mine. As if (only to make fun of his word choice and not moneywar), my individuality were not "legal."
But if Dannyboy thought a bit, what if a soda business OWNER did not agree with selling colas. Must he/she or medically transgender whatever be forced to sell them?
Ummmm....no.
Ownership is freedom, until Dannyboy comes along with his queered idea of the Constitution.

Ownership is freedom, not when they are regulated agency subject to obtain drugs.

"YOU are the one saying I can't be a pharmacist. "

Bullshit. There are lots of jobs in that field which don't require working at a pharmacy. But if you choose that profession, you should know you're a licensed intermediary between the doctor and the patient, and not the guy who gets to decide which medicines you'll dole out. Again, you knew the requirements of the job when you signed on.

"what if a soda business OWNER did not agree with selling colas."

Apples and oranges. Colas are available everywhere, without prescription, and from anyone, licensed or not.

"until Dannyboy comes along with his queered idea of the Constitution."

You're the one pulling non-existent parts of the Constitution out of your ass, not me. And I noticed you haven't answered about the SC mailman. If the pharmacist has a problem and can refuse, why can't the mailman if he also has a problem?

"But in regards to religion, you've got it backwards: the only reason you're giving someone derelict in their duty a pass is because he's doing something that agrees with your religion."

Now dannyboy wants everyone to think my beliefs make me derelict. What a leftwing Nazi!

"Apples and oranges. Colas are available everywhere, without prescription, and from anyone, licensed or not."

And it is no sweat for the one who wants to kill her child to go to the next pharmacy. Your own alleged "logic" turns on you.
A license to be a pharmacist does not mean an obligation to commit murder.

Awesome. Religious douche bags won't be allowed the opportunity to deny women the choice of having a kid or not.

I'm going with Diablo with this though bigotry isn't the word I'd use it kinda fits. Dansforth and company suggest that a business owner cannot decide what products/services they provide based on their personal beliefs well how about a Jew who will only eat kosher food does he have the right to demand that the local grocer carry kosher food? Certainly food is a more important commodity to life than a morning after pill. That this pill is a controlled substance doesn't mean shit either there are other pharmacies, overnight it (they're effective for 3-5 days after sex) or a little thing called planning ahead.

And as far as your tiresome argument about a mailman if the Post Office was a private business (as it should be nowadays) the owners/management should have the right to decide what they will accept for delivery and the mailman could either abide by that or get another job if the management wouldn't accommodate his beliefs.

A license to be a pharmacist does not mean an obligation to commit murder.

Can and does the morning after pill be taken without being preg.?

In fact that is what it is used for, the morning after. It means a HUGE HUGE doubt of your stupid forecast.

You have no foundation for your position here.

It is easily solved here, close all pharms. and open all pharms. run by government...issues ends.

Tell the religious freaks to jump in the lake.

The shorter Gimme:

Health care is like a Deli, or Chuck E. Cheese...

"Now dannyboy wants everyone to think my beliefs make me derelict. What a leftwing Nazi!"

Whoa...you have a serious comprehension problem. Reread what I posted, and this time, look up the words you don't understand.

" how about a Jew who will only eat kosher food does he have the right to demand that the local grocer carry kosher food?"

Kosher foods can be purchased without a prescription, from an unlicensed 14yr old wearing a yarmulke.

Apples and Lox.

"And it is no sweat for the one who wants to kill her child to go to the next pharmacy."

Sure it is, whether or not the next pharmacy is a hundred miles away.

"the owners/management should have the right to decide what they will accept for delivery and the mailman could either abide by that or get another job if the management wouldn't accommodate his beliefs."

Wait...are you saying it's the pharmacist's decision, or the owner of the pharmacy's decision?

"as far as your tiresome argument about a mailman..."

Nice try. It's only "tiresome" because you have no real answer. If the pharmacist, who is really only a delivery system, has the right to veto delivery of a particular drug to whomever he chooses, why doesn't the mailman get that same option?

Pharmacy owner and if he wants to he can accommodate the pharmacist otherwise the pharmacist needs to find a pharmacy that will accommodate his beliefs.

The pharmacist isn't the only delivery system read my post. As for the mailman the PO isn't the only delivery system anymore.

"otherwise the pharmacist needs to find a pharmacy that will accommodate his beliefs."

Did you get that, Diablo? GaS would force a pharmacist to choose between his conscience and his job!

"The pharmacist isn't the only delivery system read my post."

It is for many, many people.

"As for the mailman the PO isn't the only delivery system anymore."

You're tap dancing around the point. What, FedEx? Fine, same question: Why should one deliverer in the chain between doctor and patient get a veto, and not any or all the other deliverers in the chain?

Unfortunately life isn't always fair but don't forget I said the pharmacy owner has a right to decide what to carry and if they want to accommodate the pharmacist.

And anyways you (not so surprisingly) seem to be conveniently ignoring the alternatives for those wanting the pill I mentioned in my post #26 Dansforth you disingenuous as usual devil.

Tap dancing? You'd win any tap dancing contest with me Danforth you're a master of goal changing too to boot.

danforth is a master of lying in order to obtain the results he wants.

"That this pill is a controlled substance doesn't mean shit either there are other pharmacies"

Not everywhere. My younger brother, for example, has to drive 30 miles to the closest pharmacy.

"overnight it (they're effective for 3-5 days after sex)"

Ah, incur greater expense because your delivery man wants a veto. But what if the overnight delivery guy wants a veto as well?

"or a little thing called planning ahead."

Your bias is showing: you'd never say that to a heart patient.

"Tap dancing? "

Yes, tap dancing. You still haven't directly answered my question. If one deliverer gets a veto, why not all?

Not everywhere. My younger brother, for example, has to drive 30 miles to the closest pharmacy.

Are you serious?

Within a 5-mile radius my town has 3 CVS and a Rite Aid AND a Kroger that has an in-house pharmacy.

"danforth is a master of lying in order to obtain the results he wants."

Fat talk from someone I can make lie on cue!

Watch this:

Hey Jackass, are you finally ready to tell us all why you signed on to Nanc's blog pretending to be "Danforth" from "the Retort"?

Now get ready for a lie in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....

"Are you serious?"

Yes...the guy lives in the middle of nowhere, Illinois. It's not the end of the world, but you can almost see it from the town limits. The type of place where you move in, and they change the population sign.

I am laughing my ass off at this! Danforth is scratching every wall trying to avoid admitting he is the one coercing someone else to violate a cogent belief not to kill another!
If a woman wants to kill her fetus, the law of the land says I can not prevent that. The same law says I do not HAVE to help it along, Dannyboy. What don't you get?? It also says I can be a licensed pharmacist without ANY religious test. QED: I can refuse to sell cigarettes, abortion potions and yes, even condoms if I own a pharmacy. It also means I must be hired despite those beliefs to work the counter while not being required to violate my beliefs. Someone else merely has to make the transaction.
It is called "freedom," dannyboy. Try thinking about that idea. It means I can disagree with you and not be forced to act by your view.

This is an interesting debate.

On the one hand I loathe government telling business owners what they can and can not sell.

On the other hand, the dispensation of prescription drugs is highly regulated for a reason.

Keep dancing for us Danforth things are slow on the Retort tonite and I can't find any archaic uncensored Japanese midget porn from the 50's on the net I haven't already seen

"Danforth is scratching every wall trying to avoid admitting he is the one coercing someone else to violate a cogent belief not to kill another!"

You're just full of silly deflections, aren't you? Why don't you answer the direct question at hand: since you believe the pharmacist deliverer of the medicine should get a veto on whether the patient gets the medicine prescribed by the doctor, should all other deliverers of the medicine get a veto as well?

" It also means I must be hired despite those beliefs to work the counter while not being required to violate my beliefs."

Huh? Must be hired?!? So you're going to force your boss to put you in a place where you can't dispense his products? Isn't that like telling a butcher he must hire you even though your religion forbids you from touching meat?

"On the other hand, the dispensation of prescription drugs is highly regulated for a reason."

Jeff, you're (usually) reasonable:

Should one type of delivery guy get a veto, and another type not?

"things are slow on the Retort tonite"

Well answer the damn question and liven things up.

Good point, Jeff. That reason (as far as regulated drugs) has always been to prevent more serious health problems, not to make Catholics, Moslems and some Orthodox Jews violate their consciences.
What this inane court decided was someone like me working a counter at a pharmacy MUST sell something I truly believes kills another human.
Even Roe v. Wade did not go that far.
I am forced to stay out of viable work if I disagree? Make Quakers shoot in war then!

Danforth you're an intelligent person why are you lowering yourself doing this imitation of that pathetic androgynous Texas beech?

" That reason (as far as regulated drugs) has always been to prevent more serious health problems, not to make Catholics, Moslems and some Orthodox Jews violate their consciences."

But where do you draw the line? What if some quirky religion doesn't believe in the drug YOU need? Are you willing to turn your needs over to any random religious veto, or just the ones with which you agree?

And why won't you answer the main question?

Dannyboy believes I must help kill someone or find other employment?
lololol!

Dannyboy, in that case I would go to another pharmacy. What do you not get??

"why are you..?"

I asked you a question first. It's not polite to ask a question without first answering the one put to you.

So...you first.

You keep saying that without stating the question, dan4th. What has not been answered in your holiness' name?

BTW, you are not a prosecutor who can demand answers, dannyboy.

Dannyboy, in that case I would go to another pharmacy. What do you not get??

What do I not get?!? What question you're answering.

Here's the Q, once more: Why should one deliverer in the chain between doctor and patient get a veto, and not any or all the other deliverers in the chain?

Either answer, or tell me you don't have one. It's getting late.

"BTW, you are not a prosecutor who can demand answers, dannyboy"

You can't answer the question? Then you lose the debate. Thanks for playing. G'night.

"Here's the Q, once more: Why should one deliverer in the chain between doctor and patient get a veto, and not any or all the other deliverers in the chain?"

Dannyboy, how many times do you see the word "conscience" and not get it??? A Quaker is allowed not to shoot in the military but can serve.
Why are you so thick?
I believe that drug kills humans and you somehow can not get it I will not and never will participate in its sale. But your "enlightened" and "liberal" view says I can not even make a living in that field unless I do something I think is killing. You think because it is "licensed and regulated," all of a sudden conscience no longer matters.
You are beyond dense. You are what destroys my party: a left wing kook.

Dannyboy knew the answer, but said goodnight to avoid it.

Over and out guys I need to look for a job tomorrow

" how many times do you see the word "conscience" and not get it???"

I get it.

Now I'll use that word in the example, so maybe this time you'll understand:

Since you want the pharmacist to have a veto because of his conscience, do you also want to allow any other deliverer a veto due to their conscience as well?

giving away my age,but I remember you used to have to get condoms from the pharmacist,too.

The pope doesn't like them either,was that wrong?

Let me take a swing at this issue:

The owner of a business should be allowed to carry, or not carry, the "morning after" pill if they want. The gov't should not be able to force them to carry a product they do not wish to carry.

A pharmacist (who may have been in his/her field MUCH longer than the existence of this product, btw) should follow his/her conscience. If the owner doesn't agree, then owner should be free to fire the pharmacist. Again, this should not be an issue for the gov't.

As for the stupid question about "if one supplier...", I can only say that you should take the same approach as when your pusher runs out of crack and find a different source. If ALL of the available methods of getting the morning after pill decided to not carry it (never happen, always someone willing to assist a murderer for a few bucks)... so what?

Does anyone have a right to force me to sell them a product? How does their right to be a whore create a responsibility for me to do anything?

"But your "enlightened" and "liberal" view says I can not even make a living in that field"

Good God, you're lousy at putting bullshit in other people's mouths. How you got 'can't make a living in that field' from "There are lots of jobs in that field which don't require working at a pharmacy" is beyond me.

"Does anyone have a right to force me to sell them a product? "

But this isn't just any product. It's controlled, it's regulated, and you're the only place it can be obtained. Your license is granted by the folks that control and regulate the substance.

"You are beyond dense."

Says the guy who posted my question, and then proceeded to answer a different one.

You can't make this shit up.

But this isn't just any product. It's controlled, it's regulated, and you're the only place it can be obtained. Your license is granted by the folks that control and regulate the substance.

#69 | Posted by Danforth

Bullshit that I am the only place it can be obtained. I might be the closest. What you are saying is that the desire (rights?) of the whore is more important than my right to not sell a product I disagree with?

So, if your parents died from smoking, and you decided to not carry cigs in your store, should a judge force you to carry them so I don't have to drive a little further? Cigs are controlled.

If you are a recovering alcoholic can I force you to carry beer? Beer is controlled.

What if you are a Muslim, can I force you to sell me a ham sandwich? Not controlled, but it might be soon, either from the Muslims or by the gov't as a health concern.

I believe that drug kills humans and you somehow can not get it I will not and never will participate in its sale.

Yes we know, you are not a pharmacist.

This brat "encourages" women to have abortions?? Sick. The mother should be charged with child abuse.

This fits with your made up belief.

It prevent fertilization from taking place and the women takes the pill even if fertilization didn't happen.

Again, I don't like abortion, but am intellectual enough to see the differences in you messed up thought.

What would YOU rather have, the morning after pill or actual abortion???????? I would understand much better if this was your stand if it was abortion.

Your reasoning is so flawed that your blind faith has made you intellectually ignorant.

And from viewing your posting history your ethical and moral high ground is of major question.

The owner of a business should be allowed to carry, or not carry, the "morning after" pill if they want. The gov't should not be able to force them to carry a product they do not wish to carry.

Bullshit, or the pill should be available on the shelf like asperin.

Either the business despenses all available medicine or the business cannot call itself a pharmacy.

I have no problem with an individual like you hypocrisizing your faith by saying I don't believe I can sell you this but the owner and pharmacy better have another individual there to sell the pill.

And then as a owner I would fire your ass.

And after reading so much of this post and seeing such ignorance one has to question the validity of their actual postings.

Not on any remote prudent rational ground can ANYONE call this murder.

A women gets drunk and wakes up knowing the deed was done the night before goes to the pharmacy and gets the morning after pill. NOW SHE MAY NOT IN ANYWAY starting the fertilization process but takes the pill to just be sure.

After anyone thinks about this, it is quite clear some here just want these women to be forced into having children and they use the mask of faith to push such.

Like I said, I don't like abortion but if I had to actually make a moral choice from my faith I would certainly by far choose the pill rather than subjecting the women to wait and later go have an abortion when it is CERTAIN potential life is involved.

I can only say that you should take the same approach as when your pusher runs out of crack and find a different source. If ALL of the available methods of getting the morning after pill decided to not carry it (never happen, always someone willing to assist a murderer for a few bucks)... so what?

What kind of reasoning is this?

Murder again!!!.....

After first time...not pregnant.
after second time....not pregnant.

Hell, it could be 8 times and still not be pregnant.

Murder?!!! You people are so far convoluted in thought to think you can actually look at a women who had sex the night before and pass judgement on fertilization.....you're better than any doctor!

Here we go again: the DR abortion absolutists and the so-called "pro-choicers", denying choice for everyone else involved.

My "legal" solution? Stock the pills. And charge $150,000 apiece for them.

See? Everyone wins!

Denying a woman freedom of choice is not "freedom of religion".

Don't like being an ethical pharmacist?

Go live in the woods wearing a hair shirt, flagellating yerself regularily while you await the End of Days and let sane people get back to work.

Be Well.

But this isn't just any product. It's controlled, it's regulated, and you're the only place it can be obtained. Your license is granted by the folks that control and regulate the substance.

#69 | Posted by Danforth
* * * *

There are thousands of kinds of medicines that pharmacies refuse to stock, for all kinds of reasons. Many of them refuse to carry certain medications because of the enormous lawsuits that have been filed because of their misuse, others because there simply isn't much demand. Others still because competing products are stocked instead.

Not here, though. No sir-ree. The libbies, as usual, know best.

"$150,000 apiece. Yes, I know that's a lot. But I oppose abortion as a matter of convenience. This way, I'll know that it is decidedly inconvenient. Will that be cash or charge?"

Inner-city pharmacies refuse to stock certain drugs also, because of constant break-ins, and the impossibility of getting commercial insurance. Maybe Dethspud and Danforth can start a big campaign to get those pharmacies dispensing the drugs they're legally authorized to carry, so that Obama voters don't have to travel to the suburbs to get their Zoloft and Tylox.

I wonder how upset libbies get when they can't get High Times or Penthouse at every corner bookstore, just because it happens to be owned by some Bible-thumping stump-toothed Catholic.

Come on libbies! Show you're a patriot, and start the lawsuits! I want beer at McDonald's too!

wonder how upset libbies get when they can't get High Times or Penthouse at every corner bookstore, just because it happens to be owned by some Bible-thumping stump-toothed Catholic.

Wonder no longer.

The answer is "not very" to yer "how upset" question.

That is if it has ever actually been any sort of real issue in the minds of the libbies at all.

And is not just another woefully inadequate and inapt analogy from RiR.

See: post #79.

Be Well.

"because of constant break-ins, and the impossibility of getting commercial insurance."

You're equating this reasoning with saying God doesn't want me to carry a drug? That's a stretch.

"The right to be protected from government coercion against my conscience...We don't treat Mennonites and Quakers that way in the military. Why is my religion different?"
#11 | Posted by Diablo

If ones religion preaches racism as some do do you believe that frees a business to discriminate based on race?

If ones religion teaches that women should only be allowed in public when accompanied by a male family member and must cover their bodies from head to toe does that give a business the right to refuse to serve or employ a woman who does not obey those rules?

I want my Oxycontin, bitches! I gotta scrip right here!

So do the libbies have a problem with my charging an outrageous amount for the pills I'm forced to carry? or are they going to legislate profit margins too?

You're equating this reasoning with saying God doesn't want me to carry a drug? That's a stretch.

#82 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine
* * * *

Why? The end result is the same--someone with a legal prescription can't get it filled. What difference does it make to cancer victim if he can't get his pain killer meds filled because his pharmacist is tired of having his place broken into?

CVS carries the morning after pill. So will competing pharmacies. But even many CVS's don't carry Oxy.

As usual, the feminists have the libbies in knots, and you have to kowtow to them and leave common sense at the door. Go ahead.

Another court ruled that the scripts have to be made available to 17 year olds, even without the parents' permission. This opens up lawsuit opportunities too.

Ah well. It's only private business. And under Obamanation, we treat businessmen and capital worse than the Chicomms do. Amazing. Keep buying!

The ethically correct behavior by the pharmacist, if he can't in good conscience fill a script, is to pass the patient along to one who can.

This isn't a debate anyone is going to win. It's all well and good to critique what you see as the mindlessness of religous viewpoint from a secular perspective until you find yourself dealing with the mindlessness of a secular viewpoint.

Well said Z.

"Why?"

Because one is based on reason and issues beyond the pharmacists control, the other is not.

I've got no issues with people of faith apart from when they are trying to claim their being reasonable. If it was reasonable, faith would not be necessary, which I believe is the whole point of faith in the first place.

Do those of you who think this pill is murder think birth control is murder, too? Because they're the same medicine. The primary function of the Plan B is to prevent the release of the egg so it can't be fertilized. It also affects the lining of the uterus to make implantation unlikely which is what BC does. It doesn't kill a fertilized embryo.

I have to admit I rarely find a subject where both sides have such compelling arguments. And until this thread got contentious it was truly fascinating. Like the abortion topic itself (and of course this subject is abortion), it is highly emotionally charged and complex.

On the one hand Diablo makes a reasonable argument about whether a pharmacist is required to do something he feels unethical. A private owner has certain rights on what he sells and doesnt sell. I suppose it is similar to a doctor refusing to perform an abortion.

However, danforth argues persuasively that a pharmacist should not be allowed to be the arbitrar of another individuals health choices. those decisions are between the individual and their physician. And like it or not the licensing of an individual places tremendous responsibilities on an individual including doing things they may find objectionable, but that is the fact of accepting the license. Does that include providing service? that is the question I suppose and in areas where alternatives are available that is not a problem but the possibility exists where this is not the case. And should we allow a small group of people to dictate what is effectively the law of the land?

I see a parrallel in the military draft, where the government has to power to force its citizens (potentiallY) to kill other people. However, there is an avenue to gain conscientious objector status, though my understanding it is very difficult to obtain that status.

So both sides seem to have some facts in their aguement.

Fascinating.

The ethically correct behavior by the pharmacist, if he can't in good conscience fill a script, is to pass the patient along to one who can.

This isn't a debate anyone is going to win. It's all well and good to critique what you see as the mindlessness of religous viewpoint from a secular perspective until you find yourself dealing with the mindlessness of a secular viewpoint.

#88 | Posted by Zed

Sorry but the biggest problem secularists have is when religous people impact them with their beliefs as is the case here.

It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry.
H. L. Mencken

"Secular" people impact me with their beliefs, too. If you're going to argue that "secular" people and "secular" laws don't match anything the religous do in terms of inspired numbness of intelligence, you'll just lose.

"A women gets drunk and wakes up knowing the deed was done the night before..."

MoneyWar is truly an idiot ,but even idiots can buy a lottery ticket.

And he has a wiener!

Sex has consequences! Fucking strangers you are not married to can create life-long problems.

And here sex was supposed to be casual fun!

The 'morning after' pill is just a variation on abortion: People want to fuck, but hide the responsibilities of fucking.

Let's try an analogy! Suppose someone gets drunk, drives home and kills an innocent pedestrian. Should this driver get a pass -- an easy way out?

After all, he was drunk!
He didn't mean for it to happen! It was just one of those things!

"The 'morning after' pill is just a variation on abortion: People want to fuck, but hide the responsibilities of fucking."

Guess condoms need to be outlawed also. Wonder if timing should still be allowed.

The very basic fact is that a morning-after pill stops fertilization from occurring. Abortion involves a formed and growing fetus. Two different issues. Though obviously not to some people.

I'm a Catholic, but I find the Catholic Church's position on the m-a pill to be funny.

The CC states that "The morning-after pill is a hormone-based preparation (it can contain oestrogens, oestrogen/progestogens or only progestogens) which, within and no later than 72 hours after a presumably fertile act of sexual intercourse, has a predominantly "anti-implantation" function, i.e., it prevents a possible fertilized ovum (which is a human embryo), by now in the blastocyst stage of its development (fifth to sixth day after fertilization), from being implanted in the uterine wall by a process of altering the wall itself."

But it then states that women will use this pill later in the process and that therefore makes this an abortion inducing pill. Kinda sounds like the idea that a gun "will" be used to kill someone, therefore it should be outlawed.

I will guarantee that in a small number of years, 50 at most, the CC will remove it's opposition to this pill and other "pregnancy-avoidance" methods. The CC, though, has to maintain its image as a conservative theological institution, so it will take time.

"The 'morning after' pill is just a variation on abortion: People want to fuck, but hide the responsibilities of fucking."

Guess condoms need to be outlawed also. Wonder if timing should still be allowed.

The very basic fact is that a morning-after pill stops fertilization from occurring. Abortion involves a formed and growing fetus. Two different issues. Though obviously not to some people.

#97 | Posted by AILtd

The real question is should women be punished if they don't have sex while they're ovulating. Because if they don't the poor little egg dies and doesn't turn into a baby.

"There are thousands of kinds of medicines that pharmacies refuse to stock, for all kinds of reasons. Many of them refuse to carry certain medications because of the enormous lawsuits that have been filed because of their misuse, others because there simply isn't much demand."

How convenient. Because some inner-city pharmacies experiences break-ins, that gives the cover to pretend it's not about religion and control. Anyone breaking in to steal RU 486 pills?

You're welcome to answer the question no one seems to be able to address: If you believe the pharmacist should be offered a veto, why shouldn't the same veto be offered to the mailman or the UPS guy?

Notice how you never hear any of these pharmacist refusing to sell hard-core narcotics like the type that Rush Limbaugh is addicted to?

The pharmacist DECIDED to become a pharmacist. As such, he/she is held to a higher standard, and is not entitled to deny care to a patient, no matter how he/she dresses it up.

You're welcome to answer the question no one seems to be able to address: If you believe the pharmacist should be offered a veto, why shouldn't the same veto be offered to the mailman or the UPS guy?

#100 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-10 01:13 PM
* * * * *

If I own a pharmacy and want to offer the pill, and one of my pharmacists says he will refuse, I can fire him. If a UPS guy has a moral objection to delivering pork or porn products, he, too, can be fired.

But if I'm an owner of a pharmacy, I should be able to decide what I will and will not offer for sale. Cigarettes are legal and regulated, too, but I can't buy them just anywhere. Ditto for beer, certain magazines, and certain drugs. But you want to mandate my carrying a certain product because it conforms with your political doctrine.

How about just do things my way? $150,000 apiece. Imagine the taxes you would collect on the sale. And all libbies love taxes.

Notice how you never hear any of these pharmacist refusing to sell hard-core narcotics like the type that Rush Limbaugh is addicted to?

#101 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-07-10 01:14 PM
* * * *

Because you're ignorant. Try google. Thousands of pharmacies refuse to carry narcotic painkillers, including Oxy.

As such, he/she is held to a higher standard, and is not entitled to deny care to a patient, no matter how he/she dresses it up.

Ok some wise acre on here claimed that a pharmacy should be forced to carry all drugs. What about Avonex? I'll give you a hint only about 50k people in America use it, it costs 27k a year should the pharmacy be forced to carry it and dispense it?

The answer is no they are not forced to carry it and dispense it. I have to order it online. Frankly that's not fair to me I have to use my CC# to get it even though I hate doing that online and hate paying by CC for anything anyway. It's a major inconvenience for me to do that but it's my only choice.

So if a pharmacy is forced to carry all drugs why can I not demand that should I sue Rite-Aid to make them carry it?

Pharmacies choose to carry certain drugs all the time telling them they HAVE to carry this one just because it is controversial is stupid.

You're welcome to answer the question no one seems to be able to address: If you believe the pharmacist should be offered a veto, why shouldn't the same veto be offered to the mailman or the UPS guy?

#100 | Posted by Danforth

Knowledge of transfer. The pharmacist has it, the mailman and the UPS guy have no idea what they are delivering. By your logic, the mailman and the UPS guy should be prosecuted for mail fraud if they deliver same.

If a pharmacy does not want to sell something, they should not have to. DANNY the facist seems to be against freedoms if they run contrary to the libtard doctrine. - no surprise there. Diablo your wasting your energy on this dork.

Because you're ignorant. Try google. Thousands of pharmacies refuse to carry narcotic painkillers, including Oxy.

#104 | Posted by rightisright

I guess a few do.

Although you can't come up with 1000, let alone multiple thousand.

"But if I'm an owner of a pharmacy, I should be able to decide what I will and will not offer for sale."

It is well established that the government tells business how to operate. It happens all the time. Electricians must use certain grade wiring. Waste facilities must meet certain standards. Governments tell Pharmacies that they can't sell marijuana.

If you are going to toss out this regulation then I think you need to be prepared to toss them all out.

www.ncsl.org

That's not a good idea either. First off, the problem is that under this system a nurse or technician who opposes abortion could obtain employment at an abortion clinic or some other provider she disagrees with, refuse to participate, and possibly be protected from dismissal. That's ridiculous.

More importantly, the pharmacist's job is to fill prescriptions. His/her religious freedom should not extend to imposing his/her religious beliefs on others by failing in his/her job.

If you are a Christian Scientist, should you get a job in the medical field that requires you to violate these beliefs?

If your religion opposes pornography, should you get a job at Penthouse and then refuse to work?

If your religion opposes eating a specific food, should you get a job at a company that produces that food and then refuse to work?

Where does it end?
Should an ER doctor refuse to treat a woman who is injured in an abortion and is rushed from a clinic in an ambulance?
Should the clerk at the insurance company be allowed to refuse to process the claim for the prescription?
Should the distribution center warehouse manager be allowed to refuse to ship the pills to a pharmacy?
Should a pharmacist be allowed to refuse to sell condoms?
Should a receptionist at a doctor's office be allowed to refuse to relay to the doctor a message from a patient inquiring about a prescription for the morning after pill?
Should the pharmacist be allowed to destroy the prescription so the patient can't have it filled elsewhere?
Should the pharmacist be allowed to pretend to fill the prescription but substitute a placebo?

Guess condoms need to be outlawed also. Wonder if timing should still be allowed.

nobody said anything about criminalizing the product.

Oh, and BTW, you don't need a prescription for a condom.

Robertr,

I agree with your post. Where does it end? Good question.

A friend of mine who is a Physician Assistant has always refused to prescribe the birth control pill because of his religious objection to it. I'm surprised he has been allowed to do it. He even worked in a small town. Eventually he left for a larger clinic that was a Catholic Funded operation and he is a bit safer in his job with his beliefs.

Your examples are ridiculous. Professionals have the right to not do things they don't want to do all the time.

An attorney doesn't have to take on a criminal case if they think the guy's guilty. There's someone down the road who's happy to help (unlike Danny's example of a CSer refusing to deliver mail, and who's employed by the govt.).

An accountant doesn't have to represent non-profits or govt. agencies if they don't like that type of work for whatever reason. There are other providers.

Why in the world should a professional, who isn't working for the govt., and when there are other providers happy to serve, have to compromise their beliefs?

They shouldn't have to. If I was a pharmacist and didn't want to sell condoms or a certain prescription, I shouldn't have to. All you would think differently if it was a pharmacist refusing to refill Rush's Viagra or Oxycontin prescriptions. If a pharmacists refused this of him, I'd say more power to them in that situation as well.

The difference of course is that a pharmacist is licensed. A pharmacist that refuses to honor a prescription should lose his license. It really is that simple, the constitution does proscribe freedom of religion, but not the universal acquiescence to the teaching of that religion. A pharmacist is not truly in the private sector because he has a government issued license.
The act of conscience excuse is somewhat suspect since the pharmacy no doubt sells condoms and birth control pills. This amounts to ala carte religion, I believe this but not that because it's inconvenient to my lifestyle to really follow the dictates of my religion.

So Danforth, you believe "I was only following orders" is a viable excuse for an Auschwitz guard? It is the same logic. Orders from superiors mean your conscience is no longer burdened? We Catholics must obey?
You are addicted to contrary, Danny. Take a happy pill or just step back and look at your need to bark and snarl without any effort to appreciate someone else's view.
If they think it is killing, then they deserve the same legal respect Quakers do when they refuse to carry weapons in the service. No different.

----------

Wrong way to object.

The right way would be to quit(which some american soldiers have done rather than be deployed to an illegal war). Which leads to the reality that we live in a fascist state.

#111 | Posted by eberly

Vernon, in the statement he made which I referred to, seemed to indicate this. I wanted to clarify his viewpoint. BTW, the CC view, which conservative Catholics firmly believe in, states that condoms are immoral. If the argument re abortion and sex is based on morality/immorality, then their view should logically be that it should be criminalized.

King, I understand your point about the license. However, the same is true for an attorney, accountant, landscaper, or plumber. Attorneys don't have to take cases they don't like under threat of disbarment. The others don't have to perform services they find objectionable or be out on the street.

I think the license part is a red herring. Otherwise, you could also penalize any doctor who refuses to do an abortion - even if they don't practice in that realm. You'd immediately have to strip lots of MDs of their licenses over legitimate moral qualms of service.

The difference of course is that a pharmacist is licensed.

So are accountants
lawyers
MDs
nurses
insurance professionals
etc..

This is a special issue because of the nature of the time sensitivity of taking this drug. Isn't there some time limit on taking this drug?

This is an interesting issue. If I own a business, can they dictate what products I have to provide. Arguably, no. On the other hand, if I have a special license from the State, am I required to provided certain services? Arguably, yes.
The reality is, many professions are regulated by the government. And in the course of that regulation, many professionals must engage in practices they may not wholly agree with. For example, as public defender if I am assigned to represent a client accused of raping a baby, I don't have the option to refuse to represent that client just because I am offended by the alleged behavior.

What the pharmacist could say is that they're out, they only come in once a month. Then when the shipment comes in (1 box) he buys it himself, and tosses it into the garbage. Repeat as necessary.

The government is trying to legislate morality here, funny enough. But give people credit for finding ways around that. If this has occurred to me, it surely has come up in the minds of people who deal with this every day.

I wanted to clarify his viewpoint. BTW, the CC view, which conservative Catholics firmly believe in, states that condoms are immoral.

Actually the CC believes that using artificial birth control is wrong.

If the argument re abortion and sex is based on morality/immorality, then their view should logically be that it should be criminalized.

don't confuse abortion with other dogmas of the church. there is no effort to criminalize birth control products like the pill and condoms etc..

there was an objection raised when the morning after pill was developed and given FDA approval but that didn't go anywhere.

What the pharmacist could say is that they're out, they only come in once a month. Then when the shipment comes in (1 box) he buys it himself, and tosses it into the garbage. Repeat as necessary.
The government is trying to legislate morality here, funny enough. But give people credit for finding ways around that. If this has occurred to me, it surely has come up in the minds of people who deal with this every day.

#120 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT AT 2009-07-10 02:27 PM | REPLY | FLAG: Right is Wrong

This should be dealt with head on, as the pharmacist is trying to do.

I take your point about the accountant or lawyer, but there's another issue:

One of the main differences is that this is a medical professional. That's a different sort of position from an accountant.

Also, if you ask an accountant to do a task for you, and he won't, and there's not another you can get to right away because you live in a tiny town or because you don't have a car, then you can wait and find another one further away in a few days.

NOT the same in the case of a medical professional or in the case of a time-sensitive medication or treatment.

What the pharmacist could say is that they're out, they only come in once a month. Then when the shipment comes in (1 box) he buys it himself, and tosses it into the garbage. Repeat as necessary.

I like the idea of charging a huge fee for it better.

For example, as public defender if I am assigned to represent a client accused of raping a baby, I don't have the option to refuse to represent that client just because I am offended by the alleged behavior.

#119 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-07-10 02:27 PM
* * * *

That's because your employer--the court system--has instructed you too. The question is whether or not you can be forced to take on that client as a lawyer in private practice, simply because state authorities regulate the bar association.

#125: In many jurisdictions where there are no PD offices, private criminal lawyers all the time are appointed to represent defendants at a far lower wage than they normally charge, as officers of the court. This is done regardless of whether the attorney likes it or not.

The difference being the pharmacist is simply fulfilling a product order, not really an active procedure. The force a doctor to perform an abortion is a bit different in that one wouldn't expect an orthopedic surgeon to be able to perform an abortion. A pharmacist by definition fills prescriptions that is his or her function. I believe the ruling as described in the article is fair. (see quote below).
The abortion issue has always struck me as inconsistent in that protesters seem to be more inclined to be reactive instead of proactive. If someone truly believed on moral grounds that abortion is immoral, and had the courage of their convictions would there be any children in foster care or orphanages? If often seems the so called people of conscience expect others to bear the courage of their convictions.

"The right to freely exercise one's religion "does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability," the 9th Circuit panel wrote."

The difference being the pharmacist is simply fulfilling a product order, not really an active procedure.

I agree but a pharmacist might not. "active" can be your own definition. They have a hand in it in their opinion.

"They have a hand in it in their opinion. "

Any more of a hand in it than the mailman...if that's his opinion, too?

"What the pharmacist could say is that they're out, they only come in once a month. Then when the shipment comes in (1 box) he buys it himself, and tosses it into the garbage. Repeat as necessary."

Why do I get the feeling you'd feel different if it was heart medicine YOU needed?

"This is a special issue because of the nature of the time sensitivity of taking this drug."

This is also a special issue because of the inborn hypocrisy of wanting one specific deliverer to have a veto on whether the patient gets the medicine prescribed by the doctor, but no other deliverers to get that same option.

"(unlike Danny's example of a CSer refusing to deliver mail, and who's employed by the govt.)."

What a bullshit deflection. Don't like the mailman scenario? Pick any you want.

Just address the issue: if you want the pharmacist to have a veto, why not the UPS guy?

"The pharmacist has it, the mailman and the UPS guy have no idea what they are delivering. By your logic, the mailman and the UPS guy should be prosecuted for mail fraud if they deliver same."

And by your logic, all we need to do is blindfold the pharmacists.

And mail fraud? Why?

" DANNY the facist seems to be against freedoms if they run contrary to the libtard doctrine"

First, you need to look up the definition of fascist.

Second, do you really want a society where a pharmacist has the final say over what a physician and his patient decide? Or where any deliverer, for that matter, gets to decide which medicines he'll deliver and which he won't?

Any more of a hand in it than the mailman...if that's his opinion, too?

let the mailman believe that if he chooses. But I think society views a pharmacist differently than mailman. No offense to mailmen/women here.

"the mailman and the UPS guy have no idea what they are delivering"

Let's say the return address is RU486 "r" Us.

Do they NOW get to decide whether or not they'll deliver the medicine?

That depends. Does my Christian Scientist mailman have the right to refuse to deliver my prescription medications?

#4 | Posted by Danforth

Here's the problem with this scenario. Pray tell how would your Christian Scientist mailman
know what was in the package he's delivering?

See the pharmacist would actually know what he's delivering so he could have a conscientious objection while the mailman cannot, as he does not know what he is delivering.

The government should not be able to force some one to buy something they object to. So the owner should be allowed to not carry this product.

If the owner does wish to carry this product and you have an issue with that you should find somewhere else to work.

"But I think society views a pharmacist differently than mailman."

So what?!?

Why are you allowing one delivery person to make the decision over the doctor, but not another? If it's all about conscience, isn't the mailman allowed to have one as well?

"Pray tell how would your Christian Scientist mailman know what was in the package he's delivering?"

The return address is "RU486 R US". So let's pretend he knows. Should he have the option to deliver the medicine or not, as he chooses?

"The government should not be able to force some one to buy something they object to"

Like auto insurance?

"So the owner should be allowed to not carry this product."

And the government should be allowed to pull his license.

Why do I get the feeling you'd feel different if it was heart medicine YOU needed?

#130 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-10 02:59 PM
* * * *

LMAO. As if it were the same. This thread is 137 posts for a reason.

Maybe the answer is more pro-choice womyn going into pharmacy school, instead of gender studies. Until that time, don't be surprised when pro-life pharmacists get clever. $150,000 apiece--paper or plastic?

And the government should be allowed to pull his license.

#139 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-10 03:19 PM
* * * *

Go ahead. These small hick towns don't need pharmacies anyway--they should just go to the city and get their stuff, or go online. You libbies know best, as usual. "Our way or the highway, bitches!"
In other news, I know that there are certain FCC-licensed TV stations that refuse to run anti-abortion ads. Maybe we should pull their licenses too. We'll have to wait for a Congressional majority, of course. But we can't have private business owners deciding anything for themselves! This is America!

It has now got to a point that I skip over RIR posts like zeigut and thom, worthless.

"So Catholics pharmacists might be prosecuted for obeying their religion? I can't wait for this one to go to the highest court. Now the left wants to coerce violation of conscience."

Differences on the issue of the morality involved completely aside, if your conscience prevents you from doing a job in the manner that employers and/or their customers have a reasonable right to expect, then you should not seek that job.

What if a nice Mormon lady applies for a job as a pole-dancer, but then she says her religion prevents her from getting into the required gear and making the moves? Are you required to hire her and let her run off customers?

What if a guy wants to work in a diamond mine, but says his conscience prevents him from being strip and cavity-searched at the end of a shift, as is required? Do you have to hire him?

What if - never mind. You get my drift.

If it's all about conscience, isn't the mailman allowed to have one as well?

If the CEO of UPS comes out and says that they aren't going to deliver certain products then fine. let's talk then.

In the meantime, UPS can work around the problem with the thousands of route drivers they have.

However, back to reality, if a pharmicist (who owns his pharmacy and is the only pharmicist there) wants to make a moral decision on what product they want to sell then can we hold a gun to their head or not?

Differences on the issue of the morality involved completely aside, if your conscience prevents you from doing a job in the manner that employers and/or their customers have a reasonable right to expect, then you should not seek that job.

define "reasonable" A pharmacy sells 2,000 different products........it chooses to not sell one of them. Now they have 1,999 different products.

sound "unreasonable" now?

#142 | Posted by moneywar at 2009-07-10 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag: LIAR

I'm still on the why you are requiring a pharmacist to carry this and not other meds?

Why do I have to mail order Avonex but not RU486? Don't tell me time sensitivity mine has to be taken once a week and missing can have sever consequences.

If it makes good economic sense for a pharmacist to carry it and they choose not to for moral reasons then it is their loss.

What if a nice Mormon lady applies for a job as a pole-dancer, but then she says her religion prevents her from getting into the required gear and making the moves? Are you required to hire her and let her run off customers?

I think we can all agree that she HAS to do the lapdances.

Go ahead. These small hick towns don't need pharmacies anyway--they should just go to the city and get their stuff, or go online. You libbies know best, as usual. "Our way or the highway, bitches!"
In other news, I know that there are certain FCC-licensed TV stations that refuse to run anti-abortion ads. Maybe we should pull their licenses too. We'll have to wait for a Congressional majority, of course. But we can't have private business owners deciding anything for themselves! This is America!

Refusing to enter into a business arrangement to air an advertisement is not the same time as failing to provide a prescribed healthcare service.

Quote from the article: The right to freely exercise one's religion "does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability," the 9th Circuit panel wrote.

"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules," the panel said.

"If the CEO of UPS comes out and says that they aren't going to deliver certain products then fine. let's talk then"

Deflection. If one deliverer gets a veto, why shouldn't another?

"In the meantime, UPS can work around the problem with the thousands of route drivers they have."

All bullshit pap answers. There are areas not served by multiple drivers.

This comes down to religious beliefs, and control.

"Maybe the answer is more pro-choice womyn going into pharmacy school"

Or maybe the answer is give the medicine to the doctor, and let him hand it out. Eliminate the possibility of veto all together.

Quote from the article: The right to freely exercise one's religion "does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability," the 9th Circuit panel wrote.

"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules," the panel said.

So nothing about finacial. Most of these small hick towns you are worried about could support this drug. So since there is no reason they have to carry it if it would cost them money there is no reason they have to carry it.

"As if it were the same. This thread is 137 posts for a reason."

Right. If it were painkillers refused to Rush, you'd all want the pharm guy stung up.

strung up

"define "reasonable" A pharmacy sells 2,000 different products........it chooses to not sell one of them. Now they have 1,999 different products.

sound "unreasonable" now?"

Depends on what the lack of that one product does to members of the community served by that pharmacy.

Let's say your daughter gets raped in a fairly isolated small town, and wants to ensure that she will not end up pregnant by anyone who would do such a thing, which seems pretty reasonable to me. Do you want her unable to procure a morning-after pill because some fundie has decided that his private morality transcends the legal availability of the drug? Do you want her to then have to seek a D & C because Mr. Prude the druggist prevented her from taking care of the situation quickly and easily, while there was time to do so?

You don't like drunks, don't open a liquor store or a bar. You don't like people with health problems you find icky, don't open a pharmacy.

Right. If it were painkillers refused to Rush, you'd all want the pharm guy stung up.

#153 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-10 03:52 PM
* * * *

LOL. As if I would care.

Thousands of pharmacists refuse to stock oxycontin. Let the lawsuits begin. This "panel" is going to be very busy, indeed.

do these same pharmacists refuse to carry condoms?

"Thousands of pharmacists refuse to stock oxycontin."

Not for the same reason they'd refuse to stock RU486, but that won't stop you from using it as a smokescreen anyway.

"do these same pharmacists refuse to carry condoms?"

Of course not; guys use those.

You don't like drunks, don't open a liquor store or a bar. You don't like people with health problems you find icky, don't open a pharmacy.

On that point, I have to agree.

Let's say your daughter gets raped in a fairly isolated small town, and wants to ensure that she will not end up pregnant by anyone who would do such a thing, which seems pretty reasonable to me. Do you want her unable to procure a morning-after pill because some fundie has decided that his private morality transcends the legal availability of the drug? Do you want her to then have to seek a D & C because Mr. Prude the druggist prevented her from taking care of the situation quickly and easily, while there was time to do so?

how isolated can we be here? Jeez!

I agree with what you are saying despite the extreme you are framing.

Not for the same reason they'd refuse to stock RU486, but that won't stop you from using it as a smokescreen anyway.

Oh, now the reason matters? I thought it was about choice. My bad.

smokescreen??? LOL

This all coming from the guy proping up the significance of the mailman to a pharmacist.

It is a wasted argument, the court ruled correctly.

How far will these religious freaks take this, from abortion to now morning after and later to all birthcontrol.

Like I said, these idiots are making judgements that they can't possibly know on any sound reasonable level. Their Conscience is a far wacked out loonie and these supposed conservatives are defending.

The catholic church wouldn't even take this head on in America, they are learning from their stand on birthcontrol....they are losing their seats in the pews.

Pharmacist despenses pills....no more than a grocery clerk despenses milk...and I find it funny the right seemed to be treating this as if the pharmacist is above this in status.

"how isolated can we be here? Jeez!"

Strange, coming from a guy who used to live in Kansas. You should know better than most how isolated certain parts of this country are.

MTW,

Once again what is so freakin wrong with ordering online?

Seriously why is everyone so worried about this when you could care less that the ONLY place I can get my meds is ... ONLINE. So you care about poor little girl more than me? Then you want to try and say I am trying to oppress people?

Right. If it were painkillers refused to Rush, you'd all want the pharm guy stung up.

smokescreenforth is at it again. If they didn't stock the product then it wouldn't even be an issue.

How about pharmacies in California that don't want to sell marijuana? Will the libbies be going after those? After all, docs are allowed to issue prescriptions for it now, but if I can't pick it up at the Burbank Walgreen's, I wonder if womyn's rights lawyers will be taking my case.

Doubt it. For them, and people like Danforth, rights are only to be enjoyed by people like themselves. If a pharmacist's job only is counting out little yellow pills and sticking it into a bottle, then why have schools for it at all? Docs know best, and so do libbies. Why bother with knowing how certain drugs interact with other ones, and needing to be able to say "no", based on other meds the patient is taking?

Nah. No need to think anymore at all. You gotta scrip, we gotta fill.

It has now got to a point that I skip over RIR posts like zeigut and thom, worthless.

#142 | Posted by moneywar at 2009-07-10 03:28 PM |
* * * *

That's because you're not smart enough to understand them.

"smokescreenforth is at it again"

Not at all. My point is if it were drugs YOU wanted, the pharmacist deciding you shouldn't get the prescription would be met with a different response.

" If they didn't stock the product then it wouldn't even be an issue."

Nor would it be if they live up to their Oath:

At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the professionof pharmacy. I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns. I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve. I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy. I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical and legal conduct. I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of pharmacy that improves patient care. I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.

Once again what is so freakin wrong with ordering online?

Do they have time for that in order for this drug to be taken?

Strange, coming from a guy who used to live in Kansas. You should know better than most how isolated certain parts of this country are.

multiple pharmacies within 40 miles no matter where you live.

Pharmacist despenses pills....no more than a grocery clerk despenses milk...

go back to your lincoln logs. crasswar now compares a pharmacist to a minimum wage stockboy at the grocery store.

"For them, and people like Danforth, rights are only to be enjoyed by people like themselves."

No, RiR, I'd be upset if a pharmacist decided you shouldn't get your blood pressure medication as well.

Therein lies the difference.

Seriously why is everyone so worried about this when you could care less that the ONLY place I can get my meds is ... ONLINE. So you care about poor little girl more than me? Then you want to try and say I am trying to oppress people?

#164 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2009-07-10 04:06 PM
* * * *

Sorry Tao, but there isn't a professional grievance lobby working on your behalf. If you were an unmarried woman, or a gay man, there would be all kinds of people to feel sorry for you. But the libbies' sympathy tends to move in only very limited directions.

" If they didn't stock the product then it wouldn't even be an issue."

Nor would it be if they live up to their Oath:

nothing in that oath that compels them to carry a product they think is morally wrong.

"multiple pharmacies within 40 miles no matter where you live."

40 miles?!? Gee, how comforting. But no guarantee any of them will carry it, right?

And 40 miles? Even in NW Kansas?!?

No, RiR, I'd be upset if a pharmacist decided you shouldn't get your blood pressure medication as well.

Therein lies the difference.

#170 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-10 04:12 PM
* * * *

Are you deliberately ignoring Tao's posts? He can't get his scrips filled, unless he goes online. But he isn't filing lawsuits and bitching about it. What is it with libbies, that they need government to do everything for them? How about getting a prescription, then keeping a few extra around, you know--just in case?

Stupid. What does that sign say, "Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part." Something like that?

"If you were...a gay man, there would be all kinds of people to feel sorry for you."

RiR once again conveniently ignores the fact gays are currently treated as second-class citizens. Must be nice.

Danforth, should every pharmacy in California be required to stock marijuana?

If they didn't stock the product then it wouldn't even be an issue.

LOL! Like heart medication? Like any other medication?

How disengenuous can these posters get?

Their reasoning is flawed which in turn makes their whole stand on religious grounds flawed so by essence they don't understand the religion.

""Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part." Something like that?"

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. I'm sure that girl in MTW's example should have planned for that rape.

" He can't get his scrips filled, unless he goes online. But he isn't filing lawsuits and bitching about it."

He probably has a little more advance warning.

Should I be able to sue a California pharmacy that refuses to carry marijuana, for ethical purposes?

40 miles?!? Gee, how comforting. But no guarantee any of them will carry it, right?

Maybe you should make sure there is an ObGYN doctor within 40 miles of anybody as well. And if there is an OBGYN, can you make them see everybody???

strawmen/deflection arguments have got only so much shelf life.

"I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns. "

No, it seems he's displaced his "primary concerns" with others.

go back to your lincoln logs. crasswar now compares a pharmacist to a minimum wage stockboy at the grocery store.

#169 | Posted by eberly at 2009-07-10 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag

Your refutation is wage???? So the rise in status is wage.

despensing milk - min. wage low class idiot

despensing pills - higher wage so they deem more respect.

Yep, we understand your reasoning skills.

"strawmen/deflection arguments have got only so much shelf life."

Which is why "40 miles" is meaningless. It's doubtful you'll find it stocked in, say, NW Kansas, no matter how many miles you drive.

Most of these small hick towns you are worried about could support this drug.

I promise I'm not trying to be snarky: Could you clarify what you mean by this?

"Should I be able to sue a California pharmacy that refuses to carry marijuana, for ethical purposes?"

Knock yourself out.

Now: should every deliverer of medicine get a veto on every medicine, or just pharmacists, and just this pill?

All of the above.

How disengenuous can these posters get?

You're right. Using Rush Limbaugh in the example was extremely disengenuous.

Your refutation is wage???? So the rise in status is wage.

despensing milk - min. wage low class idiot

despensing pills - higher wage so they deem more respect.

if you want to compare a stockboy to a pharmicist then have at it. maybe you will even figure out what a stupid argument that is.

"All of the above."

So if a UPS driver doesn't want to deliver my M-I-Ls pain medication, that's okay with you?

#139 | Posted by Danforth

So for your scenario to work we have to play pretend.

OK I'll play along no the mailman should not be allowed to refuse because he chose to work for an organization that has chosen to offer this service.

Now lets pretend this Christian Scientist mailman owns a currier service should he be allowed to refuse to deliver this product?

Like auto insurance?

Exactly like auto insurance.

Which is why "40 miles" is meaningless. It's doubtful you'll find it stocked in, say, NW Kansas, no matter how many miles you drive.

and your solution to this is to force all pharmacies in NW Kansas to carry this drug?

So if a UPS driver doesn't want to deliver my M-I-Ls pain medication, that's okay with you?

fire him.

my argument is about pharmacies, not individual pharmacists.

You know, the actual business owners on main street who fuel our economy.

You're right.

That's all I needed from you, thanks for playing.

Why bother with knowing how certain drugs interact with other ones, and needing to be able to say "no", based on other meds the patient is taking?
Nah. No need to think anymore at all. You gotta scrip, we gotta fill.

Yes because not filling a prescription because of a life threatening drug interaction that may harm the customer is exactly the same as the moral objection of the pharmacist.

How silly for anyone to think otherwise.

"Using Rush Limbaugh in the example was extremely disengenuous."

You mean accurate. If it were Rush ranting that he couldn't get the prescription rightfully his, and rightfully proscribed by one of his physicians, all the righties would be lining up to excoriate the pharmacist.

The salient facts are this revolves around women's reproductive choices --which the religious believe must always be made by them -- and the opportunity for zealots to control one of the links of the chain. No one would okay a pharmacist's veto for pain medication or heart problems. And no one would want to extend this option to all other delivers, from the mailman, to the FedEx guy, to the kid on the bicycle hired by the rural Rx.

RE: #168 | Posted by Danforth

Since Dansforth takes oaths so seriously what about The Hippocratic Oath?

(blah blah blah.)

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

(blah blah blah.)

Yes because not filling a prescription because of a life threatening drug interaction that may harm the customer is exactly the same as the moral objection of the pharmacist.

But you left alone the comparison of a mailman delivering a package.

How silly for anybody to not see that it is the same thing.

LOL

You know, the actual business owners on main street who fuel our economy.

You have convoluted this thought too.

The main street CONSUMER fuels our economy, maybe that's why you don't understand why we are in the economic condition now.

" the mailman should not be allowed to refuse because he chose to work for an organization that has chosen to offer this service."

So has the pharmacist. Try again.

"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art."

WTF? Now you're holding them to some OTHER oath?!? Talk about a stretch.

If it were Rush ranting that he couldn't get the prescription rightfully his, and rightfully proscribed by one of his physicians, all the righties would be lining up to excoriate the pharmacist.

If he carried the product but he singled him out and refused to fill the prescription then yes, we would.

But if the pharmacy didn't carry the product, absolutely not.

Yes because not filling a prescription because of a life threatening drug interaction that may harm the customer is exactly the same as the moral objection of the pharmacist.
* * * **

These pharmacists believe the morning-after pill is a life-ending drug. That's the point.

"my argument is about pharmacies, not individual pharmacists."

So if you the owner carry it, and the pharmacist refuses to dispense it, you'd fire him despite his conscientious objections?

Pharmacists are only allowed to exercise their morality, so long as it conforms with libbie orthodoxy of the day. That's what this is about.

#132. Just address the issue: if you want the pharmacist to have a veto, why not the UPS guy?

If UPS (not UPS guy) had a policy of not delivering medications, that would be fine with me. They are a private organization. If the UPS driver refused, then UPS would likely fire him or her, which is fine as well.

You stated mailman, which is a federal employee. That was the distinction I used. If this issue is a pharmacy firing a pharmacist for not filling a prescription, then I'd side with the pharmacy. That's not the issue, the issue is the govt. forcing a professional to due something they don't wish to due, with state sanctions being used to enforce.

The distinction is not bullshit.

The salient facts are this revolves around women's reproductive choices

Yes it is. Again, I believe someone should not be a pharmacist if they have trouble dispensing drugs they have a moral objection to.

But it is a slipperty slope when you put a gun to a business owners head and say "you must stock this product".

These pharmacists believe the morning-after pill is a life-ending drug. That's the point.

And this has NO FOUNDATION in which to make such a stand.

Just in the term REASONABLE DOUBT and when the pill is asked for should spark some type of mental prowess.

"Pharmacists are only allowed to exercise their morality, so long as it conforms with libbie orthodoxy of the day."

Huh? It's the righties that want the pharmacist to be able to play by whatever rules he makes up. The courts have been quite clear; what the righties want is "activist" judges.

So if you the owner carry it, and the pharmacist refuses to dispense it, you'd fire him despite his conscientious objections?

#203 | Posted by Danforth

As the employer, I should have that right. he/she can work across the street.

" the mailman should not be allowed to refuse because he chose to work for an organization that has chosen to offer this service."

So has the pharmacist. Try again.

#199 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-10 04:35 PM

How does the mailman know what drug is being delivered. How does he know it is a drug? Is the mailman reading your bills before he give them to you?

Stupid Argument Flag.

Pharmacists are only allowed to exercise their morality, so long as it conforms with libbie orthodoxy of the day. That's what this is about.

#204 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT AT 2009-07-10 04:39 PM

And to the righty orthodoxy the pharmarcists morals can be unilaterally enforced on all the patients at any time whatsoever regardless of their personal moral beliefs.

You mean accurate. If it were Rush ranting that he couldn't get the prescription rightfully his, and rightfully proscribed by one of his physicians, all the righties would be lining up to excoriate the pharmacist.

BS Danny. If pharmacists don't want to fill prescriptions for pain killers, me - a rightie - wouldn't have any problem with it at all. Even if they didn't want to serve Rush because they think he's a fat SOB, I wouldn't have any problem with that either.

Yes because not filling a prescription because of a life threatening drug interaction that may harm the customer is exactly the same as the moral objection of the pharmacist.
* * * **

These pharmacists believe the morning-after pill is a life-ending drug. That's the point.

#202 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-07-10 04:38 PM | Reply | Flag

Understanding here is critical. First statement is what the pharmacist knows factually to be harmful.

Second statement is founded on a religious BELIEF founded not on factual knowledge.

The main street CONSUMER fuels our economy, maybe that's why you don't understand why we are in the economic condition now.

don't hijack the thread with your "worker worker worker" rants.

Yes because not filling a prescription because of a life threatening drug interaction that may harm the customer is exactly the same as the moral objection of the pharmacist.

But you left alone the comparison of a mailman delivering a package.
How silly for anybody to not see that it is the same thing.
LOL

#197 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-07-10 04:35 PM | REPLY

What the hell do I care about what the mailman does so as long as my mail is delivered. Now if he refuses to deliver my guns and ammo magazine because his moral convictions are guns are wrong, then he should be fired.

Huh? It's the righties that want the pharmacist to be able to play by whatever rules he makes up. The courts have been quite clear; what the righties want is "activist" judges.

And some how these righties think they are being CONSERVATIVE but from my BELIEF they are really being LIBERAL.

Yes because not filling a prescription because of a life threatening drug interaction that may harm the customer is exactly the same as the moral objection of the pharmacist.
* * * **
These pharmacists believe the morning-after pill is a life-ending drug. That's the point.

#202 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT AT 2009-07-10 04:38 PM |

Unfortunately for these pharmacists, the drug is legal.

And to the righty orthodoxy the pharmarcists morals can be unilaterally enforced on all the patients at any time whatsoever regardless of their personal moral beliefs.

Patients?

you, crasswar and danforth need to get together on this. pharmacists are nothing but idiots who stock shelves or deliver mail. they should just STFU and WORK.

"it is a slipperty slope when you put a gun to a business owners head and say "you must stock this product"."

Agreed.

But not as slippery a slope as when we arbitrarily allow one delivery boy to get between a doctor and his patient, for reasons more religious than logical. Where do you draw the line? The pharmacist has no business second-guessing what went on in that doctor's office, and I don't think we, as a society, should go there. There's a reason a doctor prescribes and a pharmacist dispenses. Allowing a final decision by a guy with an agenda is a bad, bad idea.

They said that the new regulations would force them to choose between keeping their jobs and heeding their religious objections to a medication they regard as a form of abortion.

Yes, that is the decision. So what's the big fucking deal?

They have a choice. Dispense the pils or shove their head up the ass of baby Jesus.

Nobody is stopping them.

Pharmacists are only allowed to exercise their morality, so long as it conforms with libbie orthodoxy of the day. That's what this is about.

#204 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT AT 2009-07-10 04:39 PM

And to the righty orthodoxy the pharmarcists morals can be unilaterally enforced on all the patients at any time whatsoever regardless of their personal moral beliefs.

#211 | Posted by JimmyWallback at 2009-07-10 04:44 PM

Not what the pharmacist was arguing. Why can't the plaintiff simply go to another pharmacy?

don't hijack the thread with your "worker worker worker" rants.

Huh?????

Talk about throwing shit out there, shall I call you a ape in the cage?

I was not the individual who brought up this slanted subject.....YOU DID.

you, crasswar and danforth need to get together on this. pharmacists are nothing but idiots who stock shelves or deliver mail. they should just STFU and WORK.

#218 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-07-10 04:49 PM

Not really. They have medical training that stock boys do not get.

That is why they are educated to spot medical drug interactions that could be life threatening (though from personal experience they often fail in that respect).

They however are not qualified to unilaterally enforce their moral standards on the customer.

And some how these righties think they are being CONSERVATIVE but from my BELIEF they are really being LIBERAL.

no wonder you are so messed up. I am talking about the government leaving a business owner alone and allow him to sell what he wants for his reasons.

And you have interpreted that to be "liberal".

that explains a lot........

"Unfortunately for these pharmacists, the drug is legal."

So what? I get the final say. I'm THE PHARMACIST, for God's sake!!! Don't you all want me to be the final arbiter of what medicines you'll get and what medicines you won't?

Why can't the plaintiff simply go to another pharmacy?

#221 | POSTED BY MIDTOWNCOWBOY AT 2009-07-10 04:50 PM

WHy can't the pharmacist find another career?

And to the righty orthodoxy the pharmarcists morals can be unilaterally enforced on all the patients at any time whatsoever regardless of their personal moral beliefs.

#211 | Posted by JimmyWallback
* * * *

Correct. Fortunately for the abortion-prone, there's no shortage of pharmacies willing to dispense your morning-after drug, and online availability is infinite.

Suits me though. $150,000 apiece.

WTF? Now you're holding them to some OTHER oath?!? Talk about a stretch.

#200 | Posted by Danforth

Oh I see one of the DR's premier tap dancers can use analogies but anyone who disagrees with him can't. As usual Dansforth can play every card as a wild card but any one who disagrees has to play fair.

"Why can't the plaintiff simply go to another pharmacy?"

Unlike where you live, not all blocks have a Walgreens and a CVS. The closest Rx to my brother's place is 30 miles away.

Not what the pharmacist was arguing. Why can't the plaintiff simply go to another pharmacy?

You mean the over the top mind faith believing refusing pharmacist would have a clear conscience knowing another pharmacist dispensed the pill rather than himself........Yep, I am sure the pharmacist is on the right path of his faith.

I'm THE PHARMACIST, for God's sake!!! Don't you all want me to be the final arbiter of what medicines you'll get and what medicines you won't?

#225 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-10 04:51 PM
* * * *

Sarcasm aside, that's exactly what they do. Diet pills, pot, oxy, dozens of painkilling drugs--they just don't carry them, for all kinds of medicines.

But it's only the morning-after pill that the libbies get upset about. Cancer victims, chronic back pain sufferers, morbidly obese--unfortunately, not enough of you vote Dem. So their outrage is selective, as usual.

"can use analogies"

Look up the definition of analogy. Yours wasn't. You quoted a DIFFERENT Oath, suggesting pharmacists should be held to that, as well.

"any one who disagrees has to play fair."

Be unfair all you want. Just don't be surprised when you're called on your bullshit.

shall I call you a ape in the cage?

go ahead.

You mean the over the top mind faith believing refusing pharmacist would have a clear conscience knowing another pharmacist dispensed the pill rather than himself........Yep, I am sure the pharmacist is on the right path of his faith.

#230 | Posted by moneywar at 2009-07-10 04:55 PM |
* * * *

See what I mean.
We should all go home now. Moneyforth make for a lethal rhetorical opponent.

Yes, that is the decision. So what's the big fucking deal?

They have a choice. Dispense the pils or shove their head up the ass of baby Jesus.

Nobody is stopping them.

#220 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-07-10 04:49 PM

ManyPath's I can see how you would form your opinion. As a descendant of cow worshipers who allow people to starve as the cow's crap on them you have first hand knowledge of others religious beliefs. You also appear to be an expert at sticking your head up someone else's ass. Is that what the turbin is hides on your head?

"Why can't the plaintiff simply go to another pharmacy?"

These guys also owned the next closest one.

What if they owned all in the state?

Why can't the defendant simply supply the medicine prescribed?

I was prescribed Flexaril a few years ago, went to the WalMart pharmacy, and was told they don't keep it in stock. Had to go all the way to Walgreens, across the street.
Da bastards. How dare Walmart not stock a drug I need!
Ah well. No lawyers for me.

You mean the over the top mind faith believing refusing pharmacist would have a clear conscience knowing another pharmacist dispensed the pill rather than himself........Yep, I am sure the pharmacist is on the right path of his faith.

#230 | Posted by moneywar at 2009-07-10 04:55 PM |

I can't understand you frothing at the mouth so I don't mean what ever you are saying. Why don't you just go to another pharmacy and get your medicine.

"Sarcasm aside, that's exactly what they do."

No, it's not. No pharmacist looks at blood pressure medication and says, you know, I don't believe in this, so I'm not going to give it to you. We'd all be clamoring for his license to be revoked. And it's not like they refuse to sell you Tylenol, so you can buy Advil.

"But it's only the morning-after pill that the libbies get upset about. "

Bullshit. As I posted upthread, I'd be just as upset if some pharmacist refused to dispense your high blood pressure medication. The pill itself is a lightning rod; at issue is whether we want dispensers having the final say over what medicines will be doled out and which won't, based on the religious whim of the person.

I was prescribed Flexaril a few years ago, went to the WalMart pharmacy, and was told they don't keep it in stock. Had to go all the way to Walgreens, across the street.

apparently you weren't pregnant.

"Had to go all the way to Walgreens, across the street. "

Lucky you.

Now what if the nearest one had been 40 miles away?

And what if they didn't stock it either, because of the moral values of the owner?

Having a belief in fairy tales is no excuse for denying the public that which is legally prescribed by a Medical Doctor.

These religious zealots are only trying to interfere with a patient's medical treatment.

If the sight of blood makes you faint--don't be a surgeon.

If you don't like guns--don't be a soldier.

If you can't dispense birth control pills---don't be a pharmacist.

Are people that fucking stupid? Yes.

"Why don't you just go to another pharmacy and get your medicine."

Again: Unlike where you live, not all blocks have a Walgreens and a CVS. The closest Rx to my brother's place is 30 miles away.

It's real easy.

PLEASE KEEP YOUR RELIGION TO YOURSELF

Again: Unlike where you live, not all blocks have a Walgreens and a CVS. The closest Rx to my brother's place is 30 miles away.

#244 | Posted by Danforth

You guys are making Danforth sound like a broken record.

"You guys are making Danforth sound like a broken record."

More than usual?

Having a belief in fairy tales is no excuse for denying the public that which is legally prescribed by a Medical Doctor.

These religious zealots are only trying to interfere with a patient's medical treatment.

#242 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-07-10 05:03 PM

The morning after pill is not medical treatment any more than wearing a condom is medical treatment.

These religious zealots are only trying to interfere with a patient's medical treatment.

these pants pissers are interferring with a business owner's inventory.

Okay, since we want to use extremes then lets do it.

small town pharmacy, religious pharmacist. won't prescribe this product because of his beliefs.

are you with me so far.......

do you think he is the only religious zealot in the town? what if he carries the product and a bunch of his customers tell him to fuck off and now he is out of busines..

have we now helped or hurt this girl who was raped in timbuktoo?

So has the pharmacist. Try again.

#199 | Posted by Danforth

Nice try. I've already said if you choose to work at a pharmacy that offers this product you must dispense it or find another job.

"I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns. "

No, it seems he's displaced his "primary concerns" with others.

#182 | Posted by Danforth

Danny you left out the next line how convenient.

"I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns. I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I SERVE."

Well since he does not offer this product he does not SERVE these patients there for no violation of the oath has occurred.

The morning after pill is not medical treatment any more than wearing a condom is medical treatment.

#248 | Posted by midtowncowboy at 2009-07-10 05:07 PM | Reply | Flag

If you can't dispense birth control pills---don't be a pharmacist.

Are people that fucking stupid? Yes.

Welcome to a new member of the club.

If the sight of blood makes you faint--don't be a surgeon.

If you don't like guns--don't be a soldier.

If you can't dispense birth control pills---don't be a pharmacist.

if you hate most Americans---leave America.

Well, at least leave this thread and let adults discuss this issue.

"Well since he does not offer this product he does not SERVE these patients "

You've have succeeded in turning the oath on it's head, and rendering it meaningless. Congratulations.

Anybody who voted for Bush hates America, and the country would be better off without such pieces of moronic trash.

"Why don't you just go to another pharmacy and get your medicine."

Again: Unlike where you live, not all blocks have a Walgreens and a CVS. The closest Rx to my brother's place is 30 miles away.

#244 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-10 05:03 PM

So for your convenience, the pharmacist has to violate his conscience. But to you it doesn't matter, because it's a fairy tale. The constitution mentions someones 'right to pursue happiness'. If the pharmacist does not want to dispense convenience drugs, he should not have to.

Maybe they should move to a more convenient place.

The government should not be able to force some one to buy something they object to.

SNIP

#137 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN

What world do you live in?

I object to paying taxes. In fact my religious beliefs tell me that I should not support a government that starts wars and I should not pay taxes to that end. See how far that gets me.

So for your convenience, the pharmacist has to violate his conscience.

#255 | Posted by midtowncowboy at 2009-07-10 05:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you can't dispense birth control pills---don't be a pharmacist.

Are people that fucking stupid? Yes.

Welcome to a new member of the club.

"So for your convenience, the pharmacist has to violate his conscience."

Just like the bigoted doctor who must operate on a black person, yes. It's part of the job description.

"The constitution mentions someones 'right to pursue happiness'. If the pharmacist does not want to dispense convenience drugs, he should not have to."

Wow. Any right winger want to sign on to that Constitutional concept?

"Maybe they should move to a more convenient place."

Wrong answer.

have we now helped or hurt this girl who was raped in timbuktoo?

#249 | Posted by eberly

I heard the morning after pill is used for 24% of the abortions in the country?

I don't believe they were all raped.

If you can't dispense birth control pills---don't be a pharmacist.

thanks Mr Obvious. I agree with you on that.

However, I think we are dealing with pharmacists who were in business long before the morning after pill was approved.

There is no right to pursue happiness in the Constitution.

Birth control pills have been around since 1965.

If you can't dispense birth control pills---don't be a pharmacist.

Are people that fucking stupid? Yes.

Welcome to a new member of the club.

"I think we are dealing with pharmacists who were in business long before the morning after pill was approved."

But they sell condoms, and birth-control pills.

There are plenty of Catholic pharmacists, I'm sure. Why hasn't this issue come up before, with other products?

Welcome to a new member of the club.

self retorting retort.

The morning after pill is not medical treatment any more than wearing a condom is medical treatment.

#248 | Posted by midtowncowboy

Look Boy, I have no idea why you want to be called Boy, but I'll play along.

By definition medicine prescibed by a doctor is medical treatment.

If your wife's pussy causes your dick to burn, he might prescribe a condom and that too would be considered Medical Treatment.

Fertilization can begin just a few hours after intercourse so the chance of pregnancy prior to taking this pill is probable therefore it is an abortion pill.

There are a lot of pharmasists who have been pharmasists long before this pill came out. I hardly think it fair to expect them to give up their profession they enjoy which was dispensing meds to HELP cure people because they are against abortion.

In addition, there are a lot of people against abortion who are not religious. They simply believe it is murder.

There are plenty of Catholic pharmacists, I'm sure. Why hasn't this issue come up before, with other products?

I would assume because of the time sensitivity of this product. Also, this being a product used after sex to prevent pregnancy, it is very objectionable to the Catholic Church.

There is no right to pursue happiness in the Constitution.

#261 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-10 05:19 PM

Nope.

But some smart people know it was part of the declaration of independence and is therefore inherent in the constitution.

Also, this being a product used after sex to prevent pregnancy, it is very objectionable to the Catholic Church.

Then people in the Church shouldn't take them.

I heard the morning after pill is used for 24% of the abortions in the country?

That's because you listen to people who lie, and you believe them because you want to believe their lies.

The morning after pill does not cause an abortion. Educate yourself before you open your mouth---look at both sides---investigate.

If your wife's pussy causes your dick to burn, he might prescribe a condom and that too would be considered Medical Treatment.

come on!! that is a retail product that requires no prescription.

I would assume because of the time sensitivity of this product. Also, this being a product used after sex to prevent pregnancy, it is very objectionable to the Catholic Church.

#267 | Posted by eberly at 2009-07-10 05:24 PM |

Because this is not medical treatment. It is a drug of convenience. What if I the pharmacy does not carry condoms without spermicide, should they be forced too?

If your wife's pussy causes your dick to burn,

Or in Manypaths case, if your boyfriend's asshole causes your dick to burn.......

Danforth "Just like the bigoted doctor who must operate on a black person, yes. It's part of the job description."

Hold up there pal. Can't discriminate based on race, color, religion, etc. Not wanting to deal a pill used to terminate a pregnancy is not discrimination on a protected class. You're way off.

But some smart people know it was part of the declaration of independence and is therefore inherent in the constitution.

#268 | Posted by midtowncowboy at 2009-07-10 05:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nope--What's in the Constitution is the only part that matters. The DoI has no bearing on anything.

Tell me what creator ever gave anyone any rights, and you'll have a point. Provide a link to such a rights giving Creator of course, and tell how Jefferson came to be his Prophet.

come on!! that is a retail product that requires no prescription.

#271 | Posted by eberly

So are band-Aids. Still considered Medical Treatment if you put one on a cut?

Does my Christian Scientist mailman have the right to refuse to deliver my prescription medications?
#4 | Posted by Danforth

Again, should Christian Scientist mailmen get the same veto? Please answer.
#7 | Posted by Danforth

But if MY Christian Scientist mailman had a problem
#12 | Posted by Danforth

If the pharmacist has a problem and can refuse, why can't the mailman if he also has a problem?
#22 | Posted by Danforth

why doesn't the mailman get that same option?
#34 | Posted by Danforth

why shouldn't the same veto be offered to the mailman or the UPS guy?
#100 | Posted by Danforth

Any more of a hand in it than the mailman...if that's his opinion, too?
#129 | Posted by Danforth

Don't like the mailman scenario? Pick any you want.
#132 | Posted by Danforth

If it's all about conscience, isn't the mailman allowed to have one as well?
#138 | Posted by Danforth

Let me get this straight Dansforth can throw mailmen analogies into birth control thread but I can't bring up physicians? And that's just mailmen.

Be unfair all you want. Just don't be surprised when you're called on your bullshit.
#232 | Posted by Danforth

Hey Disingenuous Dansforth I just called you on your bullshit

#270 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I didn't see where that link said that it isn't an abortion.

I don't really know and I have never asserted that it is the equivilant of an abortion.

#275 | Posted by Barfalo_Batshit at 2009-07-10 05:30 PM | Reply | Flag: Didn't do well on the bar exam.

Hold up there pal. Can't discriminate based on race, color, religion, etc.

There is no holding. You just proved his point for him.

If you did not want to do all previously known aspects of the job for which you were hired, you shouldn't have applied for the job in the first place.

Case closed.

So are band-Aids. Still considered Medical Treatment if you put one on a cut?

no. unless you going to have the pharmacist put the bandaid on.

Or are you going to suggest the checkers at Walmart to be "health care" providers?

can't have it both ways.

I honestly can't believe there is any debate about this.

If you can't dispense birth control pills---don't be a pharmacist. - Buff Boob

If you don't want to do porn, don't be an actor.

If you don't want to work on patents all day long, don'g be a lawyer.

If you don't want to do audit work, don't be an accountant.

If you don't want to fix semi-trucks, don't be a mechanic.

blah, blah, blah...

should that pharmacist not have to pay taxes because federal funding for abortions?

#270 was to Murphy

Mainly because other people are too stupid to read the fucking link and click on things like--

HOW DOES EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION WORK.

"Let me get this straight Dansforth can throw mailmen analogies into birth control thread but I can't bring up physician"

Hey, idiot, I brought up another deliverer of the exact same product.

You barfed up a different oath, and pretended pharmacists should be held to that one, too.

There is a debate in this somewhere Joe. Unfortunately the left deflects with mailman and stockboy references and buffaloshitbreath and crasswar deflect with their own personal ideological beefs with the world.

Look Boy, I have no idea why you want to be called Boy, but I'll play along.

By definition medicine prescibed by a doctor is medical treatment.

If your wife's pussy causes your dick to burn, he might prescribe a condom and that too would be considered Medical Treatment.

#265 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-07-10 05:22 PM

ManyPaths, tolerance is the one thing that sets the US apart from other countries, like that shit hole where you came from. Please don't lecture anyone on 'keeping religion to yourself'. The pharmacist can carry and dispense any drug that is legal. If he chooses not to carry a particular drug, go somewhere else and leave him alone. You are the one interfering with his personnel beliefs. Why don't you leave him alone? Why do you want to force your belief system(cow worshipping) on him? Just leave the guy alone.

There is no holding. You just proved his point for him.

#280 | POSTED BY MANYPATHS AT 2009-07-10 05:32 PM | REPLY | FLAG
??? People aren't coming into the pharmacy to get pills based on their religious convictions. In fact, the pharma's who refuse and are being punished by the state are being descriminated based on religion.

Say I am a female I go to a pharmacist with a prescription for RU-486.

How does the pharmacist know what the presciption is for? His lack of knowledge damns his decision.

"There is a debate in this somewhere Joe"

Not in my mind.

As a pharmacist, it is your job to dispense medications to those that are entitled to them.

The morning after pill is a legal medication.

Someone who asks for one is entitled to have one.

If you as a pharmacist are unable to dispense that legal medication, for any reason, then you should quit your job.

End of story.

"Unfortunately the left deflects with mailman and stockboy reference"

They're only "deflections" to folks who can't or won't answer the questions directly: why should one deliverer of the medicine get to inject a veto between doctor and patient, yet another deliverer not allowed that veto? And do you really want whatever religious wacko CVS has put behind the counter that day to be the ultimate arbiter whether you'll get your prescribed medicine, be it birth control or blood pressure?

Keep putting words in my mouth and I'm going to put my dick in yours.

#293 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-07-10 05:40 PM

You've reached the intellectual level of Buffalo_Bob.

You've reached the intellectual level of Buffalo_Bob.

#296 | Posted by midtowncowboy

I am dealing with Eb who lives with his mom.

Trying to stay on that level.

RU-486 doesnt kill people, people kill people.

The medicine that the patient takes should be of concern to only her and the doctor.

Jesus can butt the fuck out.

They're only "deflections" to folks who can't or won't answer the questions directly: why should one deliverer of the medicine get to inject a veto between doctor and patient, yet another deliverer not allowed that veto?

The mailman has no idea what he is delivering.

And do you really want whatever religious wacko CVS has put behind the counter that day to be the ultimate arbiter whether you'll get your prescribed medicine, be it birth control or blood pressure?

That is an issue for CVS to deal with. They can easily allow someone else to fill the prescription. How is this different than the recent decisions requiring companies to provide accomodations for muslims prayer time?

If you as a pharmacist are unable to dispense that legal medication, for any reason, then you should quit your job.
End of story.

#294 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2009-07-10 05:40 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Do you believe that a doctor unable to perform a legal procedure, like abortion, for any reason, should quit their jobs?

Just a question.

The medicine that the patient takes should be of concern to only her and the doctor.

Jesus can butt the fuck out.

#299 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-07-10 05:45 PM

Agreed so let the doctor recommend a pharmacy that will provide the drug.

"The mailman has no idea what he is delivering."

You have no proof of that. If he did, should he get to decide whether to deliver the medicine or not? Of if he was a CS mailman, could he choose not do deliver ANY medicines if his conscience compelled him?

"They can easily allow someone else to fill the prescription."

Not all CVSs have multiple pharmacists on duty at all times.

Agreed so let the doctor recommend a pharmacy that will provide the drug.

#302 | Posted by midtowncowboy

And it just got easier in the State of Washington to do so.

Do you believe that a doctor unable to perform a legal procedure, like abortion, for any reason, should quit their jobs?

Just a question.

#301 | Posted by somoco

I may be mistaken on the exact proces but a doctor has to choose to become skilled/licensed in the specific procedure and therefore would presumably not have a religous reason for refusing said procedure

"let the doctor recommend a pharmacy that will provide the drug."

For the third time: Unlike where you live, not all blocks have a Walgreens and a CVS. For example, the closest Rx to my brother's place is 30 miles away.

What about this don't you understand?

CVS can fire the pharmacist. The question is, if CVS decided not to peddle this particular drug, can the govt. fine and sanction them civilly and criminally for failure to do so, and pull the licenses of their pharmacists.

You've have succeeded in turning the oath on it's head, and rendering it meaningless. Congratulations.

#253 | Posted by Danforth

Explain?

They're only "deflections" to folks who can't or won't answer the questions directly

#295 | Posted by Danforth

Your question has been answered directly many times.

You just cant handle the fact that your analogy falls on its face when you consider the mailman would have no idea what he is delivering and there for can't have an objection.

I need to go but for the most part, this isn't a problem in areas where there are multiple pharmacies available and multiple pharmacists at pharmacies to remedy these issues. I'm referring to areas where there are choices readily availabale.

I accept the rural area situation as being a possiblity. But if we value the presence of a pharmacy in a rural area then I would be careful to not create too many disincentives that might lead to the unintended consequences of people waking up and finding that there is NO pharmacist in their area anymore.

I agree that pharmacists should consider another profession if they can't do the job but I also think business owners should be able to sell what products they want.

In that there is a good debate on both sides.

I may be mistaken on the exact proces but a doctor has to choose to become skilled/licensed in the specific procedure and therefore would presumably not have a religous reason for refusing said procedure

And after doing so, he/she becomes unable to perform the proceedure, yeah, the person should quit.

I don't know how they would make money referring everyone to another doctor that could.

I may be mistaken on the exact proces but a doctor has to choose to become skilled/licensed in the specific procedure and therefore would presumably not have a religous reason for refusing said procedure

#305 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2009-07-10 05:51 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Gyno doctor who delivers babies, deals with reproduction and is fully capable and board certified - but has religious or moral objection to abortions. He's got to have his licensed pulled if he says no?

this isn't a problem in areas where there are multiple pharmacies available and multiple pharmacists at pharmacies to remedy these issues.

Maybe not. Ever been to the State of Washington? Aside from Seattle?

"when you consider the mailman would have no idea what he is delivering and there for can't have an objection":

But this guy overheard the family asking about it, and telling the mailman to look for a delivery from "RU486 r Us".

So now he knows. Does he get a veto?

Looking over what this thread has become, I think I have an answer to the whole dilemma:

Start marketing the morning-after pill to guys, telling that administering it to a woman the morning after (or hell, the minute after) will guarantee that they won't have to worry about some future DNA test making them responsible for a kid they fathered.

Damn things would be in bubble-gum machines before too long.

But they do sell Medical Products to be used in Medical Treatments.

Keep putting words in my mouth and I'm going to put my dick in yours.

so what? your comparison is stupid. which is about right coming from you.

Maybe not. Ever been to the State of Washington? Aside from Seattle?

what is your point? stop asking questions because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

just rant and piss and moan. I'll take care of the rest.

"Your question has been answered directly many times."

No it hasn't. Deflections have always been raised, like 'go to another pharmacy' and 'the mailman doesn't know', NONE of which answer the questions directly.

Gyno doctor who delivers babies, deals with reproduction and is fully capable and board certified - but has religious or moral objection to abortions. He's got to have his licensed pulled if he says no?

I say no. The Left's argument is that the decision to take this pill or have an abortion shall be left up to the woman and her doctor. PERIOD. Nobody is suggesting that doctor's be forced to prescribe the pill or perform abortions.

But after that decision has been made by the doctor and the patient, this rulling states that the licensed pharmacist fill the script without getting involved with the doctor/pateint relationship.

You don't need a storefront drugstore or pharmacist to buy the Plan B pill.

I wonder how often Ralph's Thriftway has refused to sell alcohol to people.

And do you really want whatever religious wacko CVS has put behind the counter that day to be the ultimate arbiter whether you'll get your prescribed medicine, be it birth control or blood pressure?

no. but that is my decision as a business owner. and I should just be able to fire him.

#313 | Posted by Danforth

Well since we have play make believe for your analogy to work maybe we should have trained monkeys dispensing drugs.

See in make believe land there are no dilemmas.

Many - That's a fair answer. I don't think you speak for the left though.

"This info took me 5 minutes to look up."

Egghead.

I wonder how often Ralph's Thriftway has refused to sell alcohol to people.

I know people who own Convenience stores who won't sell alcohol on the basis of their beliefs.

they don't do very well though....

#317 | Posted by Danforth

Of course they do you just dont like the answers.

"no. but that is my decision as a business owner. "

I was asking about your decision as a patient in need. Do you want to play roulette every time you walk into a pharmacy?

the thriftway sells alcohol, yet refuses to sell the ru 486 drug, I just wonder how many alcoholics got their liquor at that store.

But after that decision has been made by the doctor and the patient, this rulling states that the licensed pharmacist fill the script without getting involved with the doctor/pateint relationship.

I do really need to go but that is being weighed against telling a private business owner what products he HAS to stock.

Many - That's a fair answer. I don't think you speak for the left though.

#323 | Posted by somoco

I appreciate that.

And so does the Left I am sure.

"Of course they do you just dont like the answers."

Try answering the questions without a single deflection.

1. Why should one deliverer of the medicine get to inject a veto between doctor and patient, yet another deliverer not allowed that veto?

2. Do you really want whatever religious wacko CVS has put behind the counter that day to be the ultimate arbiter whether you'll get your prescribed medicine, be it birth control or blood pressure?

I do really need to go but that is being weighed against telling a private business owner what products he HAS to stock..

You keep saying that.

Well, it all goes with having to have a license to operate. Requirements must be met.

"that is being weighed against telling a private business owner what products he HAS to stock."

But this is not just any private business. It's a business licensed and regulated, carrying controlled and regulated substances. And dispensing, at times, life saving medications. There's a difference.

From #270 link by BB--

The hormones in the morning after pill work by keeping a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. The hormones in the morning after pill also prevent pregnancy by thickening a woman's cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg.

Some people say that the morning after pill works by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. But there is no proof that this actually happens.

You might have also heard that the morning after pill causes an abortion. But that's not true. The morning after pill is not the abortion pill. Emergency contraception is birth control, not abortion.

-------

And if you read Lisa's post on #266--there is the possiblity that the egg was released and fertilized before the pill was taken.

--------

And this would lead many to believe that this would then be defined as a pill induced abortion.

-----

And when the Planned Parenthood people say,

"Some people say that the morning after pill works by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. But there is no proof that this actually happens."

It would appear they are lying or the pill is a failure. Because even if the pill was taken after the egg was fertilized they would have tens of thousands of failed morning after pill babies born.

And there is nothing on record of THAT.

Hey, idiot, I brought up another deliverer of the exact same product.

And I brought the physician who can steer a patient to that exact same product

You barfed up a different oath, and pretended pharmacists should be held to that one, too.

Not so apples and oranges since the thread is about birth control and the oath you quoted does not preclude a pharmacist from refusing to dispense a pharmaceutical if anything "I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical and legal conduct." allows him/her to use their own moral judgment. And since physicians by their very oath are prohibited from steering patients towards a product which interferes with fertilization they are violating their own oath every time they steer a patient towards this pill.

In case you've forgotten I'm not opposed to this pill I'm opposed to forcing pharmacy owners from being forced to dispense it against their beliefs much like I oppose forcing doctors to prescribe birth control and refer patients to abortion clinics. It's their individual right to do so.

But thanks for the name-calling it shows you know you're losing the argument

"With a valid doctor's prescription you can buy levonorgestrel [Plan B] from an internet pharmacy."

And how soon will it arrive, and what guarantee do you have with that?

I once ordered medicines I needed immediately, and paid the extra overnight shipping charge. They arrived three days later.

Oops!

1. Why should one deliverer of the medicine get to inject a veto between doctor and patient, yet another deliverer not allowed that veto?

It's not a veto so your question doesn't make sense. It's "I'm not getting involved in this." See, just because I'm an actor doesn't mean I'm doing porn.

2. Do you really want whatever religious wacko CVS has put behind the counter that day to be the ultimate arbiter whether you'll get your prescribed medicine, be it birth control or blood pressure?

CVS can fire them. If CVS takes a position it won't dispense, then they can go down the street, on the internet, whatever. The "rural" argument is crap. There's always people who'll do something for money. Ask MJ's doctors.

What about when we have legal euthanasia pills, and your neighbors start coming in for those. I'd fucking hang up my pill counter, and flip the bird at the local capital, DC, and the nearest licensing entity.

#331 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2009-07-10 06:07 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

"And I brought the physician who can steer a patient to that exact same product"

When the subject was the Oath taken by pharmacists. The "steering" has nothing to do with it; you were taking the pharmacists to task for not adhering to someone else's oath.

"But thanks for the name-calling it shows you know you're losing the argument"

Too funny. Read your own posts again, old man.

Next the left will demand that OB GYN doctors perform at least 10 abortions a month in their practice.

Because there are not enough abortion doctors out there to do the one million or so abortions a year.

They will demand that the abortions be unlimited and readily available anywhere in the country.

In fact--the NARAL's of the world will demand that no doctor --OBGYN --can deny any woman an abortion.

Doctors are licensed and regulated and must do this within their own practice no matter what their conscience says.

CC--- there are many many pharmacists who were doing their career before the MA pill was invented.

I once ordered medicines I needed immediately, and paid the extra overnight shipping charge. They arrived three days later.
Oops!

#336 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2009-07-10 06:11 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Use Cialis next time. I think it'll last a couple of days whereas Viagra you have to be "on it" pdq.

"It's not a veto so your question doesn't make sense"

Huh? The pharmacist has a veto.

"CVS can fire them."

That does you no good on that night. You've missed the point again.

"The "rural" argument is crap."

Posted by a city dweller, no doubt.

I brought up another deliverer of the exact same product. Dan

Dan--

For the love of peanuts!

The mailman doesn't know what the phuck is in the package!

It is a moot point.

"Use Cialis next time."

Don't need it, but it's good to know you're the expert.

"The mailman doesn't know what the phuck is in the package!"

Let's say he does, for one reason or another; the return address could tell him as much, or maybe he heard the family talking about expecting the drug.

So does he get to refuse to deliver the medicine, or not?

As a pharmacist, it is your job to dispense medications to those that are entitled to them.

The morning after pill is a legal medication.

Someone who asks for one is entitled to have one.

If you as a pharmacist are unable to dispense that legal medication, for any reason, then you should quit your job.

End of story.

#294 | Posted by JOE
* * * *

Every single one of those things is also true of Oxycontin, narcotic pain killing drugs, and marijuana in the state of California. Are you saying that every pharmacist who doesn't keep Oxy in stock because of breakins need to quit his job? How about CVS stores in Santa Monica who won't carry pot, for whatever reason? They quitting the biz too?
Fair enough. $150,000 per pill. Don't like my prices, take a hike.

Posted by a city dweller, no doubt.

#342 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2009-07-10 06:17 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Wrong again, as usual. Although the nearest town, pop. 7,500 has 2 pharmacies.

"the nearest town, pop. 7,500 has 2 pharmacies."

Good for you. But again, your experience isn't everyone's.

"Are you saying that every pharmacist who doesn't keep Oxy in stock because of breakins need to quit his job? "

Tell you what, the first pharmacist who experiences a break-in by folks wanting to steal the morning-after pill can refuse to stock it.

Fair enough?

And how soon will it arrive, and what guarantee do you have with that?

I once ordered medicines I needed immediately, and paid the extra overnight shipping charge. They arrived three days later.

Oops!

#336 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-10 06:11 PM

Try answering the questions without a single deflection.

#331 | Posted by Danforth

Any answer any one gives that you don't agree with you will call a deflection.

Its not a deflection to say the mailman doesn't know what he is delivering its the truth.

Any way as I have already said the mailman has chosen to work for an organization that chooses to deliver this stuff if he doesn't like it find another job. The same applies for someone working for CVS if they choose to carry this product.

"Its not a deflection to say the mailman doesn't know what he is delivering its the truth."

But it's possible, isn't it? It's not a stretch to imagine there is a mailman somewhere who used to work at the RU486 factory, or a drug distribution center, and he recognizes the return address.

So if for any reason the mailman KNOWS it's medicine, can he refuse to deliver it?

"The mailman doesn't know what the phuck is in the package!"

Let's say he does, for one reason or another; the return address could tell him as much, or maybe he heard the family talking about expecting the drug.

So does he get to refuse to deliver the medicine, or not?

#346 | Posted by Danforth

You accuse people of deflecting with a deflection of your own.

Nice

"most women have a fairly good idea of the frequency of their sex life no matter if they are single or married. "

Never been in theatre, have you?

#353 | Posted by Danforth

Deflection

#353. he can, but he'd be fired. if ups driver and it was ups's policy, then he should be able to refuse. there, wasn't that easy. i know you'll split the fucking hair 5,000 more times. but, let's call it a difference of opinion on how fucking far the government can shove their hand up your ass and use professionals like a puppet to do its policy bidding.

with me, i say stay away from my backside bitches. you, apparently, are reaching for the ky to help 'em out.

"You accuse people of deflecting with a deflection of your own"

Look, you keep pretending there is NO WAY any mailman could EVER know he was delivering medicine. That's silly, at best. Mine come from "Tel-Drug of PA", right there on the package. Or the mailman could have worked at the distribution center, and could know what the products are by their return addresses. So restating the mailman couldn't know what's in the package is folly.

But exactly who do you want between you and your physician, making the final, random decision?

"most women have a fairly good idea of the frequency of their sex life no matter if they are single or married.

- Califchris"

Never been in theatre, have you?

#355 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-10 06:36 PM

???

As in back seat passions in a drive in movie? (I'm dating myself here. lol)

What does it matter where they have sex, if that's what you were implying.

The point is if women have sex they hadn't planned on having and they think it may have caused them to become pregnant, then they have this "morning after" option -- IF they so choose.

"with me, i say stay away from my backside bitches. you, apparently, are reaching for the ky to help 'em out."

What's with all the anal references? Something you'd like to tell the class?

"As in back seat passions in a drive in movie?"

No, as in in the profession.

They all fuck like bunnies.

oh -- "in theater"

Sorry, Danforth, thought you mean "in a theater"

Answer = No, I've done no theater work.

But the answer in my #359 applies either way.

"if ups driver and it was ups's policy, then he should be able to refuse. there, wasn't that easy."

Sure. You've just allowed for a delivery driver to usurp medical decisions made by you & your doctor.

Happy now?

No, as in in the profession.

They all fuck like bunnies.

#361 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-10 06:42 PM

Then perhaps those ladies working "in theater" should keep a extra supply of the "morning after" pill handy in their medicine cabinet. : )

#363 Danny, I'm sure the drugs will get there another way. You lack faith. If UPS told pharma they wouldn't deliver their drugs anymore, I'm sure the shipping department will figure something out with uncle sammy holding their hand.

#358 | Posted by Danforth

Deflection at its best

Also Danny if ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry christmas.

"without uncle sammy..."

"Deflection at its best"

Do you even understand that word?

When you say the mailman doesn't know what's in the package, and I say well, he could, that's not a defection, that's an aspect of the picture you haven't considered. I'm not deflecting to a new subject, or the "other party", or "something shiny", I'm proffering a scenario that, unfortunately, doesn't fit your preconceived notions. If you don't have an answer for that, it's okay, but that doesn't mean it's a deflection. Look it up if you need.

Most of these small hick towns you are worried about could support this drug.

Someone asked for a clarification. 1 it should have been couldn't not could my fault. 2 The point of that is Pharmacies have to stock product that cost them money. Drugs are a perishable so after a time you have to throw them out and order more. So say you have to order these from the distributor 100 at a time and they last a year. Now in a small town he maybe sells 50 in a year that means he has to throw half his stock away. Since he probably only makes 50% mark up that means he is running right at break even, now the time taken to actually dispense the pills is a loss since he makes no profit on the pills so he is carrying it at a loss. Yet you are going to demand that he do so.

You don't demand that they carry Avonex at a loss screw those folks with MS but gosh darn it if you want to make sure you didn't get pregnant last night that we will take care of and screw it if the pharmacy has to loose money to make it so.

My point is not every pharmacy carries every drug there are lots of reasons for this but to demand by law that a business owner has to carry one is crazy. I don't care if the owner doesn't want to carry it for moral or financial reasons it is his business and his decision.

Now if the pharmacy caries it and an employee were to refuse to dispense it that is a whole different issue.

"but gosh darn it if you want to make sure you didn't get pregnant last night that we will take care of and screw it if the pharmacy has to loose money to make it so."

If you can prove they will lose money or must order in quantities that will force them to destroy pills based on shelf-life, post it. Otherwise, these are just strawmen.

When the subject was the Oath taken by pharmacists. The "steering" has nothing to do with it; you were taking the pharmacists to task for not adhering to someone else's oath.

You must be really losing bad to put words in the mouths of those who disagree with you Dansforth. Nowhere do I suggest that pharmacists are beholden to the Hippocratic Oath but as usual you conveniently claim an untruth as factual.

I'm beginning to wonder if you're really that androgynous beech from Texas using another handle since you have such a similar insincere "debating" style.

Danforth,

When you say the mailman doesn't know what's in the package, and I say well, he could, that's not a defection, that's an aspect of the picture you haven't considered.

Should they have the right to refuse to deliver it yes they should.

The right will cost them their job unless they are so good the service just moves them to a different route so as not to loose an excelent employee.

If the pharmacist is the employee of someone they might well loose their job for a failure to "deliver" the meds.

If they own the company then they won't and the party who could not get them there will have to go elsewhere. Just like I do because rite-aid does not carry Avonex.

But it's possible, isn't it? It's not a stretch to imagine there is a mailman somewhere who used to work at the RU486 factory, or a drug distribution center, and he recognizes the return address.

So if for any reason the mailman KNOWS it's medicine, can he refuse to deliver it?

#353 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-10 06:34 PM
* * * *

Wow. Now who can possibly argue with that?

No--it's not a stretch at all. See, my mailman used to work at the RU486 factory, and as he was going through my mail, carefully reading the return addresses--because he only has a small number of letters and packages to deliver, after all--he recognized the return address! Why . . . that sounds like the RU486 factory I used to work at! So he goes on Anywho.com just to make sure, and sure enough! Of course, he used to work at the RU-486 plant BEFORE his religious conversion, and it was only after he converted to the Catholic faith that he quit his job there, in protest, to work as a postal carrier in Podunk.

I could see it! Really!

Danforth,

It's no more a strawman than your damn mailman you have been on about all day.

It is a posibility and the owner of the pharmacy has to judge that themselves not you or me or the fucking government.

The problem, ultimately, in using a postal worker analogy, is that you have to assume they're actually thinking at all.

This is typical, though. "Freedom of choice" only goes one direction, and heavy penalties, including loss of your career and business, are what lay in store for you if you go against the libbies.

$150,000 each! We all win!

RiR,

We all win till medicaid has to start shelling that out.

#368 | Posted by Danforth

Well by your definition then saying he wouldn't know what was in the package is not a deflection either, because "I'm not deflecting to a new subject, or the "other party", or "something shiny","

My so-called deflection is the far more likely of the two.

"Unless a woman is raped, most women have a fairly good idea of the frequency of their sex life no matter if they are single or married."

#351 | Posted by CalifChris

You could get lucky.

" Now who can possibly argue with that?"

Sure, bang on the semantics and ignore the actual issue.

Tell us, RiR, is there ANY chance a mailman would know he was delivering medicine, or not? (Hint: the return address on mine makes it clear.)

If he can, should he be able to decide whether he delivers the medicine or not?

Keep in mind, we're no longer talking about RU486. ANY medicine. If the deliverer in the pharmacy gets to override the physician, why shouldn't all other deliverers get the same option?

"Well by your definition then saying he wouldn't know what was in the package is not a deflection either,"

It's not a deflection.

It's ignoring a possibility, but it's not a deflection.

Keep in mind, we're no longer talking about RU486. ANY medicine. If the deliverer in the pharmacy gets to override the physician, why shouldn't all other deliverers get the same option?

#380 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2009-07-10 07:11 PM | REPLY | FLAG

they should

"Well by your definition then saying he wouldn't know what was in the package is not a deflection either,"

It's not a deflection.

It's ignoring a possibility, but it's not a deflection.

#381 | Posted by Danforth

Well that took all damn day.

So why did you call it a deflection?

If he can, should he be able to decide whether he delivers the medicine or not?

Keep in mind, we're no longer talking about RU486. ANY medicine. If the deliverer in the pharmacy gets to override the physician, why shouldn't all other deliverers get the same option?

#380 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-10 07:11 P
* * * *

No reason at all. Because in your world, pharmacists are no more than unthinking pill counters.

So where's the pot then?

I still want to know why a government-licensed TV station can decide that certain programming is objectionable. Or why some skinhead can't find neo-Nazi material in the public library. We can't go around expecting people to exercise moral judgment, can we?

Nah.

I can count really high. Probably forever, but at least to a couple hundred. Why can't I be a pharmacist?

Just like I do because rite-aid does not carry Avonex.

#372 | Posted by TaoWarrior

Unless Avonex prevents conception --you will have to go somewhere else.

--------

The gov't telling a company or business what to do and what meds it must dole out is bullshit.

That goes for the gov't telling business anything--unless it's illegal--that they are forced to do.

And what is seriously crazy is that some folks think it is ok for the gov't to force a business to do something for political reasons.

The gov't isn't forcing pharmacists to dole out Oxy or Tao's Avonex.

Why do they carve out this bs niche for this issue only--it is all politics.

If this gets appealed and goes to the SCOTUS--watch for it to be overturned.

I have really enjoyed the back and forth between Danforth and Diablo!. I think i have a solution ...the Plan B pill in a vending machine. lol
ps Hang in there Diablo ...I think you are on the more logical ground argument wise.
Pease
Darkstar

But this guy overheard the family asking about it, and telling the mailman to look for a delivery from "RU486 r Us".

#313 | Posted by Danforth

Now there's a conversation any mailman might overhear.

Hey, Daddy ask the mailman if he has my abortion pills in there.

Mine come from "Tel-Drug of PA", right there on the package. Or the mailman could have worked at the distribution center, and could know what the products are by their return addresses. So restating the mailman couldn't know what's in the package is folly.

#358 | Posted by Danforth

Maybe someone down at the pill factory is photocopying their ass and stealing the stationary to send out the photocopies.

Sounds just as viable.