Woman to Woman

By Ken

June 13, 2005 07:29 AM | Link to this

I apologize in advance for my lack of knowledge about the pharmacy business, but it seems as though if you become a pharmacist at say Publix, Eckerd or something similar, you should understand that you may potentially need to fill a prescription with which you morally disagree (i.e. Birth Control pills). In other words… Fill the prescription or don’t take the job.

If a person feels that strongly about not filling certain prescriptions, then they should either start their own business or find an employer that is understanding of their personal beliefs.

By Brian Curtis

June 13, 2005 08:16 AM | Link to this

Sheesh… Either you can do a pharmacist’s job—that is, fill prescriptions and keep your opinions to yourself—or you can’t. If you can’t, get another job.

I’m sorry, but this is both idiotic and pathetic. Many of these pharmacists also work at drugstores where condoms are sold; should they refuse to sell those as well? Should we employ astronauts who refuse to “violate Heaven’s sphere,” or focus on ones who can actually do their jobs?

A woman who comes in with a prescription has an arrangement between herself and her doctor; the pharmacist has no more right to judge or comment on this than the bus or cab driver who takes her to the drugstore.

In other words, you have a right to your opinion—but if it keeps you from doing the job you’re hired for, FIND ANOTHER JOB. Fundie jackasses.

By Randy

June 13, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this

This isn’t communist Russia, people can do what they want. In other words, you have a right to your beliefs-but if it keeps you from doing something immoral, that person who wants the prescription filled can go elsewhere. STAND UP FOR WHAT IS TRUE AND RIGHT.

By Brian Curtis

June 13, 2005 08:33 AM | Link to this

Not true, Randy; as Diane points out, the woman with the legitimate, entirely legal prescription (the details of which the pharmacist knows NOTHING about, I should add) may not have another pharmacy to go to—at least, not one she can get to easily.

But more to the point: Why, exactly, should a company employ someone who refuses to do his (overwhelmingly “his,” I point out) job? And how is a pharmacist “standing up for what is right” when he doesn’t even know why the prescription was given? or what the woman’s medical condition is?

As a private citizen, you can make all the asinine judgments you like. But if you’re paid to do the job of a pharmacist, your private opinions simply don’t matter. Either do your job, or find another.

By DeltaX

June 13, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this

I am no where near being a fundie, and I also would like to not have to worry about my phamacist denying me meds. But here is MY delemma regarding this issue: What if the there were major changes in dispensable meds AFTER the pharmacist in question graduated? Does one have any right to ahere to what they accepted as the profession on entry? Especially is it is a large issue for them?

I at least can see the difficult for someone who has been in a field for years, and it takes a turn different form what they expected.

Bad example: Marine biologists discover that to increase a certain population of whales off the coast, they need to “put down” half of the males because of aggression or such will negatively effect the population growth. Should the poor hippie girl/guy have to shoot the whales because it has been added to their job description? Should the industry understand that it is changing enough that current professionals would not ahere?

Just some questions, and looking for input that may settle this in my mind.

By Brian Curtis

June 13, 2005 08:36 AM | Link to this

In addition, what does filling a birth-control prescription have to do with “violating anyone’s beliefs?” I could’ve sworn the objection was to abortion, not birth control.

Except for the raving zealots, of course, who simply dislike any non-church-approved sex at all. But why should anyone listen to them?

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 13, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this

Pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions to women are violating womens’ rights to health care and privacy. A pharmacist may have no prior knowledge of a patient’s past medical history, and the effect that any pregnancy, wanted or unwanted, could have on that woman. (I equate this with protesters outside clinics where abortions are performed; they have no way and should have no way of knowing why a woman is going to the clinic; she may need a D&C after a spontaneous abortion; she should never have to explain herself in any event.)

What about women who are obviously pregnant but need category C drugs (a moderate measurement of possible harm to a developing fetus)? Can pharmacists refuse medications to women then on thesse so-called moral grounds?

Perhaps a distinction that says that pharmacists are health care messengers and suppliers of goods, but not providers of same. Better yet, report these pharmacists to the pharmaceutical companies; we all know how powerful they are. If these pharmacists are willing to take what they feel is a moral stand, they should be willing to accept the consequences of fines or lost business.

Suppose a pharmacist decided to delve into the privacy of a Cialis or Viagra user? Perhaps they would need notarized documents from their male patients stating that they will only use these drugs to have sex with their legal wives… How many men in congress would pass that litmus test? How many men would stand for this invasion of their privacy?

By Randy

June 13, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this

Maybe the company should stand up for what’s right. As for me, if I were in that business, they could fire me before I would violate my beliefs. That’s the problem nowdays, people worry about money and security, instead of right and wrong. No one has any nerve, but I do.

By RS

June 13, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this

A pharmacist is paid for dispensing prescription medicine. Nothing more, nothing less. Anyone who feels they can’t comply should be employed by some Fundie organization

By Brian Curtis

June 13, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

And how does refusing a legitimate prescription become “standing up for what’s right,” Randy?

That seems to be the core of your argument: that these pharmacists are Doing the Right Thing. But how so? What makes what they’re doing “right”?

By Tim

June 13, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

well if a pharmacist doesn’t like filling the prescription at the Walgreens he/she is working at… go work at Pharmacy de Fundie then… they have NO RIGHT to deny someone their prescription prescribed by an actual doctor!

what about the 13 year old girl who is on brith control not because she is sexually active but because she is having complications with her period and a BC pill is what helps regulate it?

they need to do their job or go elsewhere

By Amanda

June 13, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this

You guys do realize that a pharmacist is a highly trained professional trained to do more than simply cound pills, don’t you? That a significant part of their job is to make sure the medications you are prescribed are safe for you and make you aware of any complications. They are trained in diseases and illnesses to have more than just a pill-counting license. Now days, many are considered Doctors even. I don’t really have an opinion as to whether or not they should refuse medications to others, but they do have a legal responsibility to make the consumer aware of the risks and complications of any medication - from antibiotics to the morning after pill. If you are going to enter this discussion, at least give the pharmacists credit for the skills and training they have - it isn’t like they are the ice cream man, just passing on whatever you have asked to be given.

By Bruce

June 13, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this

I am a bit torn on this subject. Most of the drug stores in my area are privately owned and a privatley owned business can refuse to serve anyone they choose too and I agree with that right. But on the other hand should a pharmicist have the right to override the decision of a doctor. Sometimes medicines are prescribed to treat other problems aren’t they?

But if they work for a drug store chain, their opinion should not overide their job discription. On the other hand an employer cannot ask someone to do anything they feel is illegal or immoral.

But on the other hand should a pharmicist have the right to override the decision of a doctor. Sometimes medicines are prescribed to treat other problems aren’t they?

By Gil Gibson

June 13, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

I will agree with Diane that pharmacists can be compelled to fill prescriptions against their moral beliefs when she agrees that a newspaper editor can compel her to write a column praising the Bush administration.

By ben

June 13, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

Hey, maybe the pharmacists are on to something. Maybe Burger King can refuse Whoppers to fat people. Maybe clothing stores can stop selling thongs to little girls and overweight women. Better yet, maybe car dealerships can stop selling Corvettes to men over 40, or maybe even Glamour Shots can only shoot women under 35. Just think of the possibilities. Cops can only protect and defend those they want too. Firemen can choose what fires to put out.

By E. Lewis

June 13, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

As a Christian woman, I realized a few things early on in my life.

One of these was that in choosing my profession, I would have to look hard at the requirements and make sure that it would be a good moral fit for me. Exotic dancer was out and so were adult book store worker, being a Hooters waitress or sweat shop owner. Becoming a preacher wouldn’t work, because I am Catholic. If I were a Buddhist, joining the military probably wouldn’t have been a good choice. I would never try to force my particular religious slant on any profession. Roy Moore learned recently or perhaps he hasn’t, that he was better suited to become a preacher than the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice. This holds true for pharmacists. If that position is not a good moral fit for you then look for employment elsewhere.

The last time I checked, we all had the right to our own religious/moral beliefs. We just don’t have the right to force them on others as long as what they are doing is legal.

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

What about the non-pharmeceutical extensions of this argument? Are we going to have policemen refusing to help someone because he’s, say, muslim, and the policeman in particular thinks that muslims are evil? Doctors refusing to help patients because they believe that patient’s lifestyle is wrong? Where does the “I’m standing up for my personal beliefs by trampling on yours” mentality end?

Plain and simple - if you can’t handle the ethical questions of a particular profession, you shouldn’t be in that profession. These pharmacists are taking it upon themselves to act as doctors, as if their role is to determine what a patient’s medical needs are. It isn’t - it is to provide information about the proper way to use medication, to warn patients about side effects and interactions, and to DISPENSE the medicines perscribed.

The funny thing is, if positions were reversed and we were talking about a concientious objector refusing to shoot someone, Randy and his conservative buddies would be calling him a bleeding heart wimp. Just another example of the screwed up “culture of life” in this country today.

By Whiley

June 13, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this

Any pharmacist who refuses to give out birth control should be fired on the spot. Did anyone catch the news about this? A local pharmacist was explaining why he had every right to not fill certain prescriptions for women. He said “the pill chemically destroys the potential for life.” Anyone that actually believes that garbage is too stupid to BE a pharmacist! He should be kicked out of that store & BANNED from all pharmacies.
It’s unbelievable how many people still find it perfectly sane to control women’s reproductive lives. In the name of religion. HA ! What a joke.

Is there any way to find out which stores employ these types of people? As far as I’m concerned they are a danger to women & they all should be fired immediately.

By Bruce

June 13, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

I must proof read before I post. Sorry.

By ben

June 13, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

Amanda - No one is denying a pharmacists training. But that training doesn’t allow them to deny medication based on personal beliefs. It’s one thing to make a patient aware of the effects, but denying prescriptions based on personal beliefs is wrong.

By Carlton Wyatt

June 13, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

As has been pointed out several times, if someone has a problem with part of their legitimate job description, they should find another job. If you can’t or won’t fill the prescriptions you’ve been hired for, you’re in the wrong profession.

By Joe

June 13, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this

The early hipocratic oath blatantly denounced “apothecaries” that caused abortion. This little snippet has been conveniently discarded by mainstream medical “ethics” and now one can actually get such an “apothecarie”. Legal perhaps, but ethically repugnant.

What if outright infanticide were legalized tomorrow, Ms. Glass? Would you and your peers demand that pharmacists supply the cyanide?

What if Jews were declared the cause of all our problems and the government mandated their slaughter, Ms. Glass? Would you and your peers demand that ALL police officers participate in their imprisonment and termination?

Ms. Glass (& Company), you have to understand…there was once a man who taught and demonstrated LOVE. He showed us how to live. He taught us to nurture ALL children. He was also murdered in a horrendous manner. An innocent, legally slaughtered. HIS name, Jesus Christ.

Many OB/GYN’s refuse to perform abortions. Shall we force them to start or shall we give pharmacists the same privilege?

From a personal standpoint, 4 years ago I got involved in a relationship with a young woman that resulted in an unwanted pregnancy. An abortion was decided upon. Thankfully, her OB/GYN counseled her against it and even went so far as to perform an immediate sonogram…and gave this young woman, now my Wonderful Wife, the first picture of our beautiful daughter who is now a thriving 3 years old.

Just because it’s legal does not mean that it’s right.

By DeltaX

June 13, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Whats your thoughts on a profession changing in ways you did not anticipate?

Lets say that I am an officer and they make homosexual activity a crime - after I have joined and participated for 10 years. I do not condone such an idiotic stance and refuse to arrest a couple for merely living together. Do I find another profession?

(Trust me, I am just trying to flesh this out - the only way to grow is ask the hard questions. Even when you do not think you “need to”)

By Bruce

June 13, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Should the same hold true for doctors? I know a doctor that will not preform vasectomies because of his religious beliefs. He doesn’t try to stop you and will refer you to someone that will but he refuses to preform the procedure.

By Amanda

June 13, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

Funny, but a few have mentioned doctors refusing treatments for moral reasons. I don’t see anyone making my doctor perform abortions against her will. Actually, she tells me on many things that she doesn’t believe in that particular medication or course of action, and will normally just refer me to someone else who might. The argument that a girl might not have another pharmacist to go to if theirs objects and will not dispense the abortion medication should also be compared to a doctor’s situation. A doctor CAN refuse to perform an abortion or dispense abortion meds (unless they work certain gov’t jobs i believe). Even if the girl is in a very small town with only one doctor, that doctor cannot be forced to perform the abortion. Is that somehow wrong simply because it is now a farther drive for the girl to get the abortion? Is Diane going to try to force the doctor to perform the abortion so it is convenient?

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this

Joe, your post might have had the tiniest bit of relevance to this discussion if we were actually talking about abortion. We aren’t. Please try to stick to the topic at hand rather than turning this into an abortion debate. Which it isn’t.

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ABORTION, PEOPLE!

By ben

June 13, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

Not yet Eaton, Not yet!

By Joe

June 13, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

Eaton, actually this discussion, as initiated by Ms. Feldhahn, IS about abortion. Please reread the initial article. Aside from abortion causing meds, I am not aware of anything else that pharmacists are refusing to dispense. Well, maybe except for large quantities of pseudoephedrine. (used to cook up illegal stimulants)

By Whiley

June 13, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

We are only talking about birth control & pharmacists. Dispensing IMPORTANT prescriptions is different from seeking out a Dr. for a procedure for a specific surgery such as Vasectomy. Although, I’ve NEVER heard of anyone refusing to give out CONDOMS or morally against vasectomies. Why? They don’t directly affect & control women’s sex lives & family planning.

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

No Joe, it’s about Birth Control - preventing pregnancy BEFORE it begins. The drugs in question, the so-called “morning after” pill, STILL PREVENTS PREGNANCY. It doesn’t END PREGNANCY.

Only Shaunti and other members of the fanatical religious right try to MAKE it about abortion. But then, you people try to make EVERYTHING about abortion, don’t ya.

By lozen

June 13, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

If I were a pharmacist, could I refuse to fill Vialis for a 70 year old man because I think it’s a sin and unnatural and against the way god meant for things to be for him to still be trying to get it up at that age?

By Amanda

June 13, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Eaton, text copied from the original article above:

Decisions to refuse certain prescriptions � primarily the abortion and morning-after pills, and traditional birth control preventing a fertilized egg’s implantation �

So it seems we are talking about abortion - or at least the medication used to facilitate abortions.

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Yes Amanda, I know what Shaunti has written. As usual, she has tried to guide the discussion into the great bastion of fundy self-righteousness, but the fact remains that for the most part it is birth control that pharmacists are refusing to dispense. Not RU-486. Simple birth control and the morning-after pill, which is basically an extra-strong does of birth control.

The fundies like to make EVERY discussion about abortion because people get so rilled up about it. It prevents us from noticing the basic erosion of civil liberties that they are trying to inflict upon the rest of us.

By Tim

June 13, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Amanda… text copied from the original question above

Should pharmacists be forced to fill a prescription that violates their personal beliefs?

I didn’t know pharmacists performed abortions… seems Shaunti went off on a tangent

By E. Lewis

June 13, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

And what about my sister? She is single and was recently put on the pill by her doctor to regulate her cycle. Does a pharmacist have the right to refuse her prescription? Remember that a pharmacist is NOT a doctor.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 13, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

Putting a doctor and pharmacist on equal footing as health care providers does not work for this argument. We choose our doctors; they have a broader background as to our health histories that pharmacists do not and should not have. We don’t get to choose our pharmacists in the same way, and are stuck with whomever the pharmacy or store hires.

And yes, taking a farther drive or delaying treatment could have health consequences for a woman because time is of the essence. Another’s religious beliefs should not supercede women’s health care choices. The unimplanted fertlized egg shed today will not turn into the late-term pregnancy or abortion that can threaten a woman’s life tomorrow, nor the baby abandoned in the dumpster or public bathroom later on.

Perhaps MDs and clinics who prescribe these medications could dispense them as well, cutting out the middle man and relieving the pharmacists of the responsiblity.

By Ruth

June 13, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

Shaunti is of course, on her liberal rhetoric ride again. I think both miss the point. A pharmacist has contracted to do a job - filling prescriptions that someone else has determined to be the best for a patient who has agreed to receive the medication. The moral/ belief contract is between doctor and patient. The pharmacist is a middle man. (Sorry, I don’t want to undermine the profession.) If the pharmacist was prescribing, then they have a right to not contract for what they do not believe in. Remember our constitutional rights to not inflict our religious beliefs on others?? We can decline from contracting, not from being a middle man outside of the origianl contract.

By lozen

June 13, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

The bible says “Thou shalt not kill!” It’s just as plain as it can be. Oh, but of course we have to send men over to Iraq to kill women and children and innocent people, along with insurgents, because we are a super power. So Lord we know you give us an exception from “Thou shalt not kill” in war. Oh, and death row - God, you know killing people because they killed someone to show them how wrong it is to kill someone is okay. We have to do that, so we know you didn’t mean “Thou shalt not kill” murderers! But we cannot have women murdering innocent little fetuses! It’s murder. They are murderers. Oh, God please help us force all those women running around free to have babies! Help us, lord, to get them back in their rightful place, under the control of men! They must have babies if they have sex! It is their just punishment for sinning!

By ruth

June 13, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

Oops, I should have proof-read, too. DIANE, bot Shaunti. And I am one of those conservatives you call “fundies”

By Archie

June 13, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

I agree with Diane on this topic. It amazes me that these activist pharmacists decided at this time not to dispense certain pills because the guy I saw did not look as if he was new to the job. I agree with Whiley that those guys should be fired. Heck a pharmacist could decide not to dispense stomach medecine or steroids because of his beliefs. These individual pharmacists must understand that in America we will always have disagreements on music,art,sex,drugs,alcohol,tv,etc. If you work at Blockbusters it doesn’t mean you like x-rated videos but a customer has every right to check one out and that customer should be waited on by you.

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

Well Ruth, personally the only rhetoric I see is Shaunti, as she continues to explain sweetly and carefully why the rest of us should just suck it up and conform to her way of life.

However, I must say that based on your first post, you wouldn’t be a fundy. Fundies, by definition, believe their way of life and beliefs should be forced on everyone else by the rule of law. Obviously, you’re a little more evolved than that.

By Leanne

June 13, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

For those of you who would like the truth and not moral rhetoric, please check your facts. This is NOT about abortion for one reason. The drug you are referring to as the abortion pill is called mifepristone. This is not the medication being denied by pharmacists due to the fact that this drug is administered at licensed medical facilities by a physician who moniters the patient. Physicians do not prescibe this medication to be picked up at a pharmacy. This procedure is called a Medical Abortion and dispensed at a licensed medical facility ONLY!

The drugs being denied and in question are Emergency Contraception and birth control medication. EC or Plan B has been shown ( and proven in a recent study) not to harm a pregancy that has already occurred, this medication prevents pregnancy from occurring, which the most recent study has found that it does not deny implantation, but prevents fertilization of an egg. This is similar to birth control, which works primarily to stop ovulation from occurring. The pharmacists in question did not agree to refer patients to another pharmacist, which is what fueled this debate. If a pharmacist refers to another phamacist than that is covered under most pharmacies policies. The problem arising is that pharmacists are not only refusing BUT also not referring and in some cases refusing to return the prescription to the patient/client. THIS is what the debate is about.

PLEASE do some research BEFORE you enlighten us all with your moral rhetoric!!

By Amanda

June 13, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

Eaton and Tim, I agree that had Shaunti reversed the order of the statement I copied, she would have made this a different discussion to those simply reading the article above. After checking other sources, I do realize that she has switched her sentence to cover her own issues (and get people all shaken up) and that her secondary statement about plain old bcp’s is what has actually been the issue in the news lately. I guess I wanted to take her at her word because even as a conservative person, I think refusing birth control is crazy. Medications taken after pregnancy is confirmed is a different issue to me altogether, but anyway. I won’t mention abortion anymore, okay? :-) Should a pharmacist be able to refuse drugs that are against their belief? I would like to think (in my own idealistic way)that at some point we all have the right to refuse to do things against our belief, but at the same time I realize this can be taken way too far (you don’t believe in antidepressants? okay, don’t dispense them and see what happens to the depressed teenager if there is no treatment). And any action we take will have consequences. I think for the most part, the pharmacists should dispense the drug.

By Linda Williams Cattanach

June 13, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

There are known and yet unknown adverse consequences to a woman’s body which are brought upon by the potentially lethal chemical cocktail marketed as the morning-after pill. We are a litigious society. Why then would any pharmacist want to put himself or herself at legal risk by prescribing a drug which assuredly will end the life of any babe in the womb and perhaps result in an injury to the woman which will give her cause to sue the one who filled her prescription.

By Erin

June 13, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

In my opinion, if your chosen profession somehow violates your moral beliefs, either suck it up and do your job according to the prescribed standards of the profession, or find some other job that does not create some sort of moral conflict.

This includes doctors, in my opinion. If a woman wants or needs an abortion and seeks it within the proper time frame, no ob/gyn should refuse it. Again, if you don’t like the territory that comes with the profession, don’t tread there. Become a podiatrist instead.

Who is a pharmacist to judge the decision that a doctor and patient make together? That pharmacist has no idea why birth control was prescribed. Perhaps the patient is on Accutane, a highly volatile acne treatment that can cause serious birth defects. Most doctors automatically prescribe birth control for their female patients when they are put on Accutane, regardless of their age or level of sexual activity. Or what about the young girl who takes birth control to regulate her menstrual cycle because otherwise she would go six months without a period, and then bleed so much that she becomes severly anemic and passes out?

For the record, the morning after pill does not cause an embryo to spontaneously abort. It merely prevents a fertilized egg from implating in the womb. If implantation has already occurred, the morning after pill is useless. Moreover, birth control does not prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. It prevents a woman from ovulating altogether, so there aren’t even any eggs to be fertilized.

Shaunti needs to read up before she tries to sound intelligent when discussing a subject. As it is, her glaring ignorance just makes me laugh even more at the fundie crap that she spews.

By Netbanker

June 13, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Bruce…you stated earlier that “an employer cannot ask someone to do anything they feel is illegal or immoral.” While I agree on the illegal part, an employer can certainly ask someone to do anything that an employee feels or thinks is immoral provided that it is not illegal. I experienced this early in my career working as a credit manager for a finance company. The usery laws set allowed interest rates very high (up to 33% for a loans of less than 3,000). These finance companies (I’m sure you’ve all see the articles about the paycheck loan companies) should be allowed to charge higher rates for the higher risk although I think that rate is outrageous even for C-level credit. What I found to be immoral is that these companies prey on those who truly live paycheck to paycheck by actively soliciting them when the loans had been paid down a few hundred dollars…”hey could you use a break from that payment this month” or “the holidays are coming I’m sure you could use that money for gifts and get a month off on making that payment.” The loans are ‘flipped’ to restart the interest since interest is paid before principal. It was part of my job to make those calls. I eventually decided is was immoral to take advantage of these people, but it was not illegal and therefor the company could demand that I perform my job.

My worry is that while Shaunti framed her argument in terms of birth control it starts us down that (uggg I hate to use this phrase, but it works) slippery slope of pharmacists being able to make random decisions based on personal belief.

By Tim

June 13, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Linda Williams Cattanach…

“Why then would any pharmacist want to put himself or herself at legal risk by prescribing a drug…”

last time I checked Pharmacists don’t prescribe drugs… Doctors do

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Thanks Amanda - I think you strike at the real heart of the issue, abortion aside.

The real issue we should be examining is how this affects everyone - when does one’s responsibilities as a member of a certain profession supersede one’s religious or ethical beliefs? And, if this happens with regularity, should one abandon that profession, or continue to act in it.

If someone expects certain behaviors out of a certain type of authority position - and pharmacists are in a position of one kind of authority, then is it not equally unethical to not behave in the expected manner?

I expect police to protect me, firemen to put out fires, pharmacists to dispense medication, etc. etc. etc. By being one of those people, you take on the responsibility of the position. By refusing the duties of that position, you’re betraying not only the person refused, but your implied authority and responsibility as well.

By Erin

June 13, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Linda Williams Cattanach, you are clearly one of the ignorant people out there who has absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about.

The morning after pill (EC or Plan B) is in no way a “lethal cocktail” - it is merely 2 high doses of progestin (the same hormone that is in birth control pills) that prevent fertilization or implantation.

For the record, birth control pills, from which EC was derived, have been on the market for well over 30 years, so I am fairly confident that any “life-threatening” illnesses that might be caused by birth control would have become evident by now in women who took birth control in the 60’s and 70’s (by the way, back then, birth control dosages were ridiculously and unnecessarily high, so the women who took them back then would be most “at risk” by your theory).

Before you decide to unload a bunch of crap on this board, at least do your research first so that those of us who actually have some inkling of what we are talking about don’t have to correct your imbiciles over and over again.

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

Somehow, even in our litigious society I can’t imagine anyone suing a pharmacist because he filled a prescription that was prescribed by someone else. That’s like suing the guy who delivered your furniture because the leg broke and you hurt yourself.

By Netbanker

June 13, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

Linda…pharmacists don’t prescribe drugs and those that they do dispense have been approved by the FDA. The pharmacist can not be held legally responsible for adverse side effects.

By ben

June 13, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

My are we viscous today! Some of you people need a timeout!

By lozen

June 13, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this

The morning after pill … is merely 2 high doses of progestin (the same hormone that is in birth control pills) that prevent fertilization or implantation. So this leads me to believe that a woman could take a handful of birth control pills after an “accident” to prevent pregnancy. Anybody know for sure?

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

To be fair, I CAN see someone suing a pharmacist for negligence if he or she failed to adequately predict negative interactions between multiple drugs, when that interaction should have been predictable.

By DeltaX

June 13, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

Netbanker, My GF is a loan officer and if I have it straight, some of the loan programs for veterans are insane in how much they will loan vs income.

If a person was working with you trying to buy a house, and wanted a loan you felt was damaging to their sustainablity - and immoral of banks to even provide. Would you give them the loan? Try to educate them?

I deal with this on a non-volitile level: I do some Graphic-Design. People always ask for BAD designs they came up with. I feel it is my responsibility to educate them, but if they insist; they get the crap they asked for.

I always hear about it later tho.

By Linda

June 13, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

I am missing the logic of those suggesting the “morning-after” pill is not abortion. The pill is ONLY prescribed to eliminate a conceived baby. That is the definition of abortion, willfully eliminating a conceived baby. Those who seek to prevent conception, take precautions before, not after.

By Amanda

June 13, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

Lozen, there are a few brands of birth control that can be taken in larger doses to have the effects of the morning-after pill. The one I take can be used this way, and sometimes this is actually how it is prescribed by the doctor, instead of the Preven pre-packaged route. Not all pills work this way, and the medical community does not recommend making your own cocktail, but there are resources out there (including your doctor and some websites) that can help a woman know what doses of her regular, everyday birth control can be used in the “emergency contraceptive” fashion. I just know that taking 2 pills in one day makes me incredibly sick, so the higher doses that you take for morning-after would make me feel like absolute crap!

By Erin

June 13, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

“So this leads me to believe that a woman could take a handful of birth control pills after an “accidentâ€? to prevent pregnancy. Anybody know for sure?”

First, for all of you who still think EC is an abortion pill, educate yourselves:

http://www.go2planb.com/section/about/index.html

Second, while Plan B contains only levonorgestrel (one form of synthetic progestin), birth control pills typically contain levonorgestrel or some other synthetic progestin in addition to ethinyl estradiol, a synthetic form of estrogen.

http://my.webmd.com/hw/healthy_women/te7768.asp

I suppose theoretically you could “overdose” but it would be stupid in my opinion, as no one should try to diagnose themselves when it comes to something like that. It might also just make you vomit. It’s not worth it to “do it yourself,” especially when EC costs like $15-20.

By Amanda

June 13, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

Linda, it is seen that way because the morning-after pill is taken BEFORE YOU ARE AWARE of a pregnancy (only works within 24-72 HOURS of the unprotected encounter) and is not something the women take after discovering they are pregnant weeks later. There are different drugs for that. For morning-after, it keeps the fertilization from happening, it doesn’t abort a pregnancy that has already started.

By ben

June 13, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

Actually, Linda, the morning after pill works before a woman becomes pregnant. It prevents the biological process. So it is NOT abortion.

By kimberly

June 13, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

Most pharmacists are competent professionals who perform an important service to the people in their neighborhoods. Some of them, however, prefer to indulge their control-freak tendancies in perhaps the only way they can: by making decisions that aren’t theirs to make that affect the lives of people that aren’t theirs to affect.

These sad, weak individuals are unhappy that they cannot make and enforce directives as to how everyone else should live and behave. Many of them also crave attention and a sense of self-importance that they lack at home. It’s passive agression at its worst, but when this country becomes a one-party FASCIST THEOCRACY, these individuals will be lovin’ it!

By Linda

June 13, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

You are absolutely correct that pharmacists fill the prescriptions written by others and do not prescribe them. You are, however, incorrect in assuming that limits their legal liability. As far as the risks of taking the morning-after pill, check the literature and warnings which accompany the drug. Don’t rely on the rhetoric of those who see nothing wrong with using women as guinea pigs for chemical experiments.

By Leanne

June 13, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

Linda, I think that you are confusing a medical abortion or mifepristone(abortion pill), with the morning after pill. The “morning after pill” is actually a high dose of homones that prevent pregancy from occurring, the abortion pill or mifepristone is only dispensed in a medical facility by a licensed physician, not sent to a pharmacy. Many people confuse he two seperate drugs, many times not your fault when there are people out there that are more than happy to spew non-truths to get their way, ie. Bush camp!!

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

Linda, even if that were the case - it’s not, by the way. The morning after pill generally prevents ovulation or inhibits it in some way so as to prevent fertilization. It CAN prevent attachment, yes, but that’s only one of many - it really isn’t the issue, though as I’ve said - fundies try to make it so.

The issue is whether or not a pharmacist, and by extension anyone, should be able to inflict his personal beliefs on someone to whom he has a professional responsibility. It’s very simple to reduce this to an abortion issue. Unfortunately, it’s a lot more complex and far-reaching than that, and is indicative of the assualt on civil rights being carried out by religious fanatics around the country.

By mel

June 13, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Lozen, I loved your 9:45 post. I just had to tell you that!

I agree with most of you. Pharmicists should do the job they are hired to do, or quit.

By Linda

June 13, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Again, I cannot follow the logic. If a woman is already on birth control to prevent pregnancy, why double up and make her pills into a “morning after” pill?

And Eaton, why don’t men introduce into their bodies the same sort of risky chemicals which they promote for women? Surely, there is some combination of hormones available to limit male fertility which would eliminate the health risks for woman. Women have been risking their health by popping pills and legally aborting since the 60s, maybe it is time for the guys to step up to the plate.

By E

June 13, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

Linda, you are pitifully misinformed. Plan B is prescribed to PREVENT conception or implantation. Check your facts, please. By the way, Plan B is often prescribed for women who have been raped. It is taken within 72 hours of the incident and if it is not taken within that time frame it will not abort an implanted zygote. Who are you to tell her that she has to spend the next 9 months of her life being reminded every moment of the horrible trauma she endured because it would be “wrong” for her to take a pill that would prevent her painful and unwatned pregnancy.

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

Linda, if you had been party to previous discussions, you would have read a number of posts by men perfectly willing to take male birth control pills if they existed.

It sounds like you have a real axe to grind with all kinds of birth control, but that really isn’t the issue at hand here.

Oh, and typically the “morning after” pill is taken by women NOT on birth control. I’m not sure what logic you’re having trouble following.

By Lyrazel

June 13, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

By LK

June 13, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

Linda, the reason that men don’t do that is because reproduction has traditionally been considered a “woman’s problem.” Some men consider their fertility a sign of their masculinity and won’t be willing to do this. After all, they don’t have to give birth to children. And where are you getting your information that these drugs are so risky? The “possible side-effects” list doesn’t count because every drug I’ve ever taken has included one of these lists(all of which have been a mile long), and I have never had a problem with any of my medication (including my birth control) and side-effects and neither has anyone else that I have known. These lists are included so that pharmacists don’t get sued. Also, while I’ve heard of a lot of pharmacuetial companies getting sued for adverse side-effects of medication, I’ve never heard of a pharmacist getting sued. Of course, I could be wrong seeing as I am not an expert.

By ben

June 13, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

Linda - If there was a product that men could take as birth control, most of us would. Why do you make is sound like men are these barbaric creatures that force you to take birth control and have abortions. Last I checked, you had options.

By JJ

June 13, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

Birth control pills are prescribed for many reasons. Some women are on them to reduce the loss of blood related to endometreosis, some are one them continuously to prevent cycle related migraines. The pills can prevent further complications of these medical conditions. The pharmacist does not know why they may of been described and by refusing can cause more harm.
Would the pharmacist be opposed to despensing medications that relieve migraines? If not, why not prevent the possiblity prior to the onset. The only reasons I can see for a pharmacist to not dispense a medication that has been prescribed by a MD, is drug interaction or dependency…and then it is their job to notify the MD, not to just not give the medication.

By Tony

June 13, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

Diane put it:

“Our civil liberties are being whittled away by the tyranny of narrow-minded, self-righteous moralists who do not respect individual autonomy.”

Oh really? You can obtain the Morning After Pill online.

The current price is $79 with FREE consultation and delivered overnight via FEDEX

So why all this hoopla over nothing?

By JJ

June 13, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

prescribed….not described, sorry

By Netbanker

June 13, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

Well we all seem to be in agreement for the most part on the pharmacists so rather than degenerate into the abortion issue what shall we chat about?

Thoughts on Bill Frist’s campaign finance scandal? Or the moral obligation of companies who default on their defined benefit pensions? Or…anyone? anyone?

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this

Well Tony, I guess us poor non-believers and such just find this kind of religious tyranny to be a little spooky. I can see why you would think it’s “nothing”, being that you’re one of the would-be tyrants.

As I’ve said. The issue isn’t BC or MA pills - it’s whether or not self-righteous moralists such as yourself get to continue to force their narrow-mindedness on the rest of us.

You know - the rest of us that you called “unworthy” last week. At least you didn’t cut-and-paste some long winded piece of sanctimonious crap this time. I’m sure that’s next.

Pray for me Tony, I’m sure I need it.

By LK

June 13, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this

Tony, there are a lot of people out there without internet because they can’t afford it. Also, people have to go where their insurance is accepted (assuming that they have insurance) and I wonder how many insurance companies would cover an online morning-after pill not prescribed by a doctor. And I know that I don’t have $79 to spare on a pill which means that there are many out there who can’t afford it either. Of course, this is only vaguely related to the original topic.

Also, I would like to say about my last post that if it sounds like I am bashing men, that was not my intention. I was just saying that some men are like this. I know there are many many good guys out there but unfortunately, other than my fiance and father, I have not had much contact with them.

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, if we can avoid the abortion pitfall, there’s still some good discussion material left. Let’s answer those tough questions Delta was talking about.

By mel

June 13, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

I was talking to someone yesterday about this Aruba situation. First off, I am hoping and praying that Natalee will be found alive. But I am fascinated by the political and economical implications of this case. The Aruban government seems to be protecting those young boys. Obviously, their main concern is their tourism industry. The whole thing is frustratng, and I can only imagine what her mother must be going through.

By Lyrazel

June 13, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

Netbanger: let Frist go down with DeLay and take Ralph Reed with them when they go!

By Boscoe

June 13, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three possible ways in which it can work: 1. Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released. 2.The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation. or 3. It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first and second actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the human being created will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus. This last reason is why people bring in their religious beliefs!

By Scott G

June 13, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

Some people just don’t get it. This is NOT an abortion argumet! No matter how much some would like to turn it into. I think both Shaunti and Dianne really miss the point altogether, so I will use the term “slippery slope” in describing the slide that will occur.

First, most large pharmacies require that pharmacists complete a pharmD degree - Dr. of Pharmacy, before they allow them to dispense medications. They are trained to recognize when one drug will have an adverse affect on another and possibly produce a life threatening side effect.

Second, pharmacists are not M.D.’s. They do not know why a medication has been perscribed and it is none of their business. Phamacists are prosecuted for “writing” perscriptions on their own, why can’t they be for refusing to fill a legally authorized one as well.

Our religious and moral beliefs are our own and can’t be taken away. While we are free to hold any belief we choose, we are not free to act upon those beliefs. Laws are written to regulate behavior, not thoughts and refusing to fill a perscription written by a doctor is a behavior.

Lastly, what’s next? Where do we stop? Will we deny HIV medications because we don’t support someone’s “lifestyle” without knowing that the medications were perscribed because a patient contracted the disease through a blood transfusion or that it was passed down from parent to child! Where do we stop? What drug is next? This is the “slippery slope” and it is dangerous and it will kill many more people than filling the original perscriptions!

By Netbanker

June 13, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

Should a woman really be considered pregnant if a fertilized egg doesn’t implant? I think this is the crux of the issue for those with passionate relgious beliefs. We know that many such eggs do not ever attach and are passed out of the woman’s body during menstruation. In these cases the woman never even knew that an egg was fertilized and the hormonal changes that support pregnancy do not occur.

By Linda

June 13, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

Good point, Tony. Why take away the civil liberties of pharmacists to their moral beliefs if these chemical concoctions can be obtained on-line? Why should one set of civil liberties trump another?

LK, I’m glad you are having no current problems. Unfortunately, problems don’t always occur immediately. For example,for decades many women were given the hormone premarin for post-menoposal symptoms. Now research has found (and these side-effects now are listed in TV commericials for the hormone)taking these hormones has led to increased incidents of breast cancer, heart disease, and various forms of demention.

Men’s birth control will be available when there is a demand for it as there is for Viagra and other male enhancement drugs. As long as women are willing to risk their health, why bother?

And, yes, Eaton, preventing the attachment of a conceived child is eliminating that child and that is abortion.

By ben

June 13, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

I’m all for a new argument, I mean subject, before this continues to spiral toward the very boring abortion/religion subject.

I was looking at my SCANA bill yesterday and I was happy because my bill was on $35. Then, for the first time, I looked at more than the amount due line and saw that my actual usage was only $8. SCANA charges $14.85 for the guy to come out and read my meter, and $8.95 for a customer service fee. So starting today, I’m going to call customer service everyday just to get my monies worth.

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

Linda, that’s a religious distinction - Doctor’s do not consider a woman to be pregnant UNTIL the cell attaches.

And frankly, it doesn’t matter. This issue is not - I repeat IS NOT about your views on abortion. It’s not about your personal dislike of birth control, or any of those things.

Scott G. has summed it up for us very nicely. If you want to pursue the simplistic abortion issue, feel free, but geeze. We’ve discussed that one six ways from Sunday to no avail. Do you really think you have anything to add?

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

Ben, do like the guy in the Dell commercial and see how long it takes to get them to crack.

By Bruce

June 13, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

Here is another spin. Should a pharmicist fill a prescription for someone they know are drug addicts and the prescription is only a fix for that person?

By ben

June 13, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Oh, they will know me by name because I’m going to call everyday at 4:30, and I’m going to ask the same question everytime. “What does the $8.95 customer service charge cover?” On days that I forget to call, I will call twice the next day.

By Boscoe

June 13, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

The person behind the counter is not refusing to fill out a prescription for emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill because they have some issue with birth control. The pharmacist is refusing to fill the prescription for this chemical because it can be specifically used to end a pregnancy. Whether you call it one or not this IS about a chemical abortion. If the pharmacist holds to his or her religious views and refuses to give you what you ask for go somewhere else.

By Ben

June 13, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

Should the ice cream man not sell ice cream to someone he knows is diabetic?

By Scott G

June 13, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

OK, birth control pills have been around for over 30 years and have been a point of contention since they were first perscribed. You can’t use the arguement that the pharmacy industry has changed and, as a pharmacist, you were suddenly taken by surprise when confronted with a scrip for the morning after pill. Get real and grow up! If you haven’t been in the business for 30+ years then you knew you might have to dispense something you didn’t agree with and know that the wacko-cracko fundies scream foul you jump on the bandwagon! You should have your pharm license pulled and never work there again, or better yet, you should never have become a phamacist in the first place. Don’t like it, move to Saudi Arabia or Iran where they support your views!

By Netbanker

June 13, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Ben I like that plan to get your monies worth. It doesn’t matter what company you choose the smallest part of the total tends to be the actual gas.

Linda…do you do ANY research before typing? There are current attempts at a male pill. The reason one isn’t currently available isn’t demand, but biology…it just isn’t that easy to stop production of sperm.

By kimberly

June 13, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

Thanks Ben; good one on the SCANA bill! I should do this for my Fulton County water bill as well. Funny… the SEWERAGE fee for the amount of water used is nearly twice the fee for the amount of water used. Here’s my problem with that: the meter registers incoming water. What about the water I use that does NOT go into the sewer system? I’m not much of a lawn waterer, but I do grow tomatoes and peppers, and I use the hose to wash things down outside as well. Why am I paying sewer fees for that which never goes into the sewer? I should call them daily!

By Boscoe

June 13, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

A pharmacist dispenses drugs that have been FDA approved. Pharmacists learn about the effects of new drugs as they come on the market. He/she has little knowledge of what the biologists are doing in the labs at the pharmaceutical companies. Since “Abortion” drugs are a relatively knew technology a pharmacists may have first been introduced to them AND had to make up their mind whether or not to dispense these drugs while their approval was in the hands of the FDA.

By lozen

June 13, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Hey Ben. Did you mean vicious? What was the “WOW” about last week? I kept waiting for you to extrapolate on that “Wow.”

Pharmacists: either do your job or get out of the way! If you’re not there to fill prescriptions written by a physician, why are you there? Why would someone ethically opposed to selling alcohol work in a package store?

If men could get pregnant Medicaid would pay for your morning after pill and your birth control. Your insurance company would pay for your abortion and when you had one you would get a medal for helping to solve the world problem of overpopulation.

By SUZAN

June 13, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

Diane it seems the one with the attutide of a “tyranny of narrow-minded, self-righteous moralists ” would be the liberals why is it the obligation of the pharmacist to committ what is to him a sin for the convience of some ones sex life. Go to another store. you and no one else has the right to shove you beliefs down a pahrmacist throat because it is not a violation of your cival rights it a a matter of convenice . I have come to understand that the biggest promotors of political correctness are the people who in truth are the most non-toloerant to anyones right to believe in God and uphold those beliefes by refusing to participate in your sins and acts of immoral behavior. Espaecially when it comes to christians

By Charles J

June 13, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

Hey guys,

I’ll be brief. But I have yet to see anyone answer the questions posed by JJ, Lyrazael and many others. So to my Chrisitian brothers and sisters who support the pharmacist refusal out there, don’t shy away form the tough question:

I’ll wait on responses.

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

Can anyone imagine what it must have been like to have been Boscoe’s high school teacher?

“It’s an interesting position to take Boscoe, but I really don’t think that Captain Ahab represents abortion doctors…”

Boscoe, at least give us some credit. The REASONS for the pharmacists denying to fill the prescriptions are obvious. The question is not why they are doing so, but rather if they should be able to do so.

You say “Go somewhere else”. Well, I say “Find another job”. If anyone - I don’t care who you are or what profession you’re in - can’t handle the responsibilities of his position, he should find another position.

Today it’s pharmacists. Next week, it’s doctors, and policeman. Where does it end? I guess when all the people that Boscoe and other fundies find objectionable are dead, burned up or dying from lack of medication, then they’ll be happy.

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Oh, cry on the other shoulder, Suzan. Are you yet another one of those “oh pity me” Christians who is upset because Christianity isn’t a state religion and you don’t get to strut around smiting the heathens?

By Sandy

June 13, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

So most of the objections that are being raised are due to the selective or discretionary nature of behavior by pharmacists. I am willing to bet, though, that most pharmacists don’t decide not to fill certain prescriptions on a case-by-case basis. I honestly don’t have a problem with pharmacists having the choice not to fill certain prescriptions, as long as it is consistent (i.e. there is a no-fill policy, regardless of circumstances). For those women that want birth control that live in rural areas with only one pharmacy, there are other options such as mail-delivered prescriptions. Maybe this won’t work for emergency medication, but as long as there is a policy for the pharmacy, the consumer can be aware of that while engaging in any risky behavior.

By Ben

June 13, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

Kimberly - You should. lol. I know you are always going to pay some BS charge, but when that charge is almost twice the amount of the service used, it’s ridiculous. And the ideas behind bank fees are pretty ridiculous too. Paying money to spend my money! Seriously?

By DeltaX

June 13, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Eaton, You seemed interested in difficult dialog.

If you and I were cops like the illustration above and were told to arrest a couple b/c homosexuality, even in their home, has been made illegal; what do we do?

Lozen, Lets say you were a pharmacist and a new medication came out that assisted in aleviating ADHD, but also influenced womens to being more docile and domesticated. Would you give the 15 year old girl her medication?

I know that you could blow holes through the analogy if you want. I have no agenda, so please just see where I am coming from with the only purpose of exercising my(our) mind.

By Ben

June 13, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Lozen - Yes I meant viscious, thanks for the spell check. As far a my WOW in last week’s forum, it was a response to whoever posted chapters 1 - 10 of some book or something. My eyes were burning after I tried to read it. Nothing to extrapolate about. lol. You should know by now that I step to the side when people turn to religion or abortion.

By Boscoe

June 13, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

Eaton, it has been you saying this isn’t an abortion debate, yet that’s exactly why the pharmacists refuse to fill prescription for the “Morning after” pill. The pharmacists are only legally bound by law from dispensing drugs without a prescription. There is no law that says they HAVE to dispense drugs. That obligation rests with their employer. Go cry to someone who cares.

By Netbanker

June 13, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

I knew this was going to degenerate into an abortion focused discussion! And I get why…while the question is general Shaunti focused solely on women’s reproductive health while Diane actually answered the question. We see the same thing happening in this ‘discussion.’ Those of the conservative/fundamentalist stripe are solely focused on women’s reproductive health while the rest are looking at the whole issue and possible effects. It is easy for Boscoe to say go somewhere else because HE isn’t being told to do so. Boscoe what would your reaction be if you needed a prescription to treat heart disease and the pharmacist said that in their religion \the heart is the home for God and that to take any drug that affects the heart is forbidden so you’ll have to go elsewhere?

By kimberly

June 13, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Ben, yes, banks are EVIL! (Hey, here’s a topic idea..) I used to be in banking ops, and witnessed policy-making first hand. Oh boy, were they mad at me when I refused to join their political action committee and put my signature on their lobbying efforts. (The recent bankruptcy bill is one recent example of big money purchasing laws that benefit them.) If you read the truth-in-lending laws, you’ll see that they give the banks the right to screw you eight ways to Sunday, with one or two small exceptions. Then they list those small exceptions as protections they are giving us. E-V-I-L!

By Scott G

June 13, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

This whole debate sounds too much like a social engineering issue. Remember back in the ‘80’s when the AIDS epidemic first hit and Ronnie “Ray-gun” refused to even mention the word for, what, six - seven years, and take no action to find the cause and stop the spread? What would be the result today had he taken immediate action to stop the spread and find a cure? Those oh, so loving, compassionate Christians just cried “sin” and let it take its course, the result - social engineering that decimated the undesirable, or less socially acceptable, elements of society. This whole morning after pill issue smacks of the same thing at the beginning. Be careful what door you open, you may not be able to shut it so easily and what is let in may be worse than what you were trying to prevent.

By Bruce

June 13, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Netbanker - response to your 10:42 post.

Wouldn’t that be discrimination? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Sex includes pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate in hiring, discharging, compensation, or terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Delta, unfortunately your metaphor isn’t too far-fetched. Until those “activist” judges in the Supreme Court told Texas to keep its right-wing nose out of people’s bedroom, this situation came up from time to time.

To my mind, a person would have a responsibility to remove himself from the position. He can not change the rules from where he works, and if the actions required by his position are morally unsupportable for him, he has a choice: either compromise his principles, or remove himself from the equation.

There is only one answer I can see.

By Boscoe

June 13, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, I would do what I have already said. I would contact the pharmacist’s employer and ask them to intervene, or if that didn’t work I would go somewhere else. It’s not much of an issue really. What I take exception to is people crying, “it’s not about abortion, it’s not about abortion”, and twisting it to make the pharmacists look like they’re working for a “fundamentalist” take over when the reality is strikingly different. The issue, for those pharmacists that do take this stand, is about giving out a drug that performs in contrary to their personal beliefs. More power to them I say.

By kimberly

June 13, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, if abortion upsets you SOOOOOO much, then I suggest you (a) refrain from ever having sex again, AND (b) take care of unwed mothers in their time of need, AND (c) adopt all the unwanted babies you can, then build a bigger house and adopt some more… OR (d) move to Saudi-fricking-NO FREEDOM-for-bit*hes-arabia.

YOU don’t get to make decisions for me, my daughter, my friends, or anyone else!

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

Gee Boscoe, I’m not surprised that you can’t see the larger argument. You make a one-trick pony look complex.

Go pray to your stern, unloving God. Apparently, he cares what you think.

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, the pharmacists REASONS are immaterial. It’s whether or not they SHOULD be able to make their decisions about who to help based on their morale codes. I realize you are incapable of moving beyond the surface of an argument, but at least try.

By Netbanker

June 13, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

Sandy…ultimately what you are suggesting is that people only live in areas with people who only think like they do. As someone else pointed out some insurance companies do not offer prescription by mail coverage. So the drug is legal, the insurance company doesn’t cover drugs by mail, the only available pharmacist refuses to fill it, and the patient does what? MOVE to a new place without religious police pharmacists?

Sandy would you take a job that may have a requirement that you to do something against your moral beliefs? It is a completely valid expecation that one’s religious beliefs not interfere with one’s ability to perform one’s job objectively. If one can not do that then they should find a job that does not create that conflict.

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Let’s hope that in these cases the pharmacist’s bosses have had the guts to fire the sanctimonious blow-hards.

By DeltaX

June 13, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I agree that to remove oneself from the job seems to be the only responsible decision.

I guess the moral is that…Life still is not fair.

By Scott

June 13, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

I haven’t decided whether this is an interesting debate yet or not, but here goes….

If a pharmacist owns the store and refuses to fill BC prescriptions, or morning after pills, why should they be held in contempt for that? Is it any different than any estabblishment refusing to render services? I can see the argument if a pharamcist that works for a chain violates company policy by doing so, as that further violates and makes liable a larger company, but individual businesses of all kinds reserve the right to refuse service.

As a law enforcement officer, I have certianly had plenty of friends ask my opinion on whether I think marijuana should be legal, on both medical and/or recreational use basis. My answer is usually that my opinion on it is irrelevant, as is theirs. It is currently illegal, plain and simple (at least in any form other than Marinol) and opinion doesn’t (or shouldn’t) influence law enforcement until that opinion works itself into the legislative process or case law.

Moral judgements are one thing, enforcing the law is another entirely…

By Netbanker

June 13, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

Bruce…I’m not sure I understand the question about discrimination and then reference to sex. If someone has a moral objection and only that person is asked or only those people with the same background then I would say it is discrimination. When the job position requires ALL employees in the same position to perform the same duties I see no grounds to claim discrimination if they morally object.

In terms of this forum. It is not discrimination if the policy were to terminate any pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription for moral reasons. It is discrimination to fire only those pharmacists who belong to a fundamentalist religous group. It still isn’t discrmination if the only pharmacists who violated the policy and are fired are ones who belong the fundamentalist group.

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Scott,

If a pharmacist is a private owner, and clearly states on the outside of his shop that he chooses not to stock a particular class of medications, then I really have no problem with that.

Unfortunately, the issue seems to involve hired pharmacists for chains more than it does independent people.

By Scott G

June 13, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Should pharmacists be forced to fill a prescription that violates their personal beliefs? That is the question that was asked. Not how the the morning after pill causes abortions. Separate subject. I personally do not approve of abortions as a method of birth control. I do in cases of rape or incest. But, as a male, I’m not likely to have to make a decision on whether I get one anytime soon. So, if I don’t support abortions, the morning after pill which would prevent pregnancy, fertilization, or implantation cut down on the number of abortions would be preferable. That is the logical conclusion. But having grown up in a fundie household I know perfectly well that logical arguments are tantamount to Satanic worship to fundies!

By Scott

June 13, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I haven’t heard whether it was chain operated pharmacies or individual ones, so I can’t say either way. Doctors prescribe meds…where you get them filled is up to you. In the case of the chain ones, I would think that comes down to company policy, loss of revenue to that company, etc.

Just a question….if the pharamcist had just refused to fill the prescription but was an atheist, what would the outcry be then?

By Netbanker

June 13, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

Scott… the pharmacist is following a religious belief and the result is gender discrimination in this case. Our society says discrimination is wrong and also supports freedom of religion. This is a grey area in which some feel that freedom of religion trumps all other rights. Yet we have legal precedents that do not allow polygamy which is a religiously based practice. So what do we do? Which right takes precedent? I do think it reasonable that people not put themselves into jobs or remove themselves from jobs that conflict with a religious belief when the performance of that job is to provide a service to people who do not share your religious conviction and the service is not illegal.

By Scott

June 13, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

Sorry for the spelling errors…trying to multi-task!

By JJ

June 13, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

Okay Boscoe, so it is about the pharmacists right to uphold their moral standards. Can a respiratory therapist withhold oxygen from a smoker with COPD because they are morally opposed to smoking (because the body is a temple)? Would you support that respiratory therapist right to not go against their moral beliefs? Or do you think maybe that they as respiratory therapist should know they might have smokers as clients and be prepared to perform their job as directed by the physician???

By kimberly

June 13, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

New business idea: a red-state-wide chain of pharmacies called “The Morality Pharmacist.” They would stock and dispense only the drugs that pass the Boscoe test. They would not sell condoms, but rather a large array of books on self-control. How ‘bout Chicken Soup for the Promiscuous Soul?

They would have a cosmetic aisle, but there would be no glittery eye shadows or slutty lipstick & nail polish colors. Only Purity Pink, and Moral Mauve. And the clerk could refuse to sell hair dye to anyone over 55, because by then, everyone should be acting his or her own age! Anyone purchasing heartburn tablets more than twice a month will be required to purchase literature on moderate eating, since gluttony is a sin.

And being the truly moral store in town, they wouldn’t RAPE us with the price of tampons the way Eckerd does. That just MIGHT get my business! Hahahaha!

By Netbanker

June 13, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

The question is personal belief not religion…so the same applies to aethists.

By JJ

June 13, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

LOL Kimberly!

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Sorry Kimberly, but the store you envision wouldn’t carry tampons. For you to need them would mean that you weren’t pregnant all the time, and we know that that’s what the Boscoes of the world expect from women.

By Scott

June 13, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, I see your point and while polygamy does have some roots in religion of varying kinds, it isn’t always a religious based practice. The laws against polygamy are in place witht the consent of voters/residents of states and there is really no great outcry to remove them regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof…

As far as gender discrimination, I’m not sure whether that applies or not. I suppose to be fair against birth control, you would need to remove condoms, and other forms as well from the shelves. Were a male bc pill wiodespread, woudl the pharamcist refuse scrips for that too? That would be an interesting question, and likely resolve whether it was a gender issue or simply a bc issue. If one were angry about the refusal to fill a certian scrip, then it seems to me that you would rather not let them fill ANY prescriptions. Protest with your business and taking it elsewhere.

Other doctors refuse to perform services for varying reasons (e.g. plastic surgery) for reasons other than religious, but there is no outcry. Too bad Michael Jackson’s plastic surgeon had no such restraint….goood grief!!!

By Gina

June 13, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

I don’t think it is right for a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription for a customer. I agree if they have a problem, then another line of work would be better suited for them.

People who don’t believe in war don’t join the military.

By Auburn Annie

June 13, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

“The pharmacist is refusing to fill the prescription for this chemical because it can be specifically used to end a pregnancy.”

Uh, the point of emergency contraception is that no one - the woman, the doctor, OR the pharmacist (unless he has special Xray vision that can see down to the cellular level) KNOWS if egg and sperm have even met. Sperm can take several days to travel upstream, so to speak; eggs can be released late or not at all in some cycles. There may be nothing to prevent. And because the status of egg and sperm is at that point unknowable, I see no ground for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense EC. There is no pregnancy - yet. But if it might occur, EC must be taken as soon as possible in the first 72 hours after unprotected intercourse to be effective - hence the need for filling the prescription promptly. And should a woman unknowingly already be pregnant before the unprotected intercouse, the EC has NO effect on the fetus. It does not terminate an existing pregnancy.

As for oral contraceptives, other posters are correct - there are many, many reasons for prescribing them other than birth control: natural or surgical menopausal symptoms such as hot flashes; acne, painful cramps, heavy or irregular bleeding, excess androgen, PMS, ovarian cysts and polycystic ovarian syndrome, among others.

By lozen

June 13, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Boscoe said, The issue, for those pharmacists that do take this stand, is about giving out a drug that performs in contrary to their personal beliefs. More power to them I say. I wonder how Boscoe feels about conscientious objectors? How about people fighting to end the death penalty? I bet you anything, for those people Boscoe would be the first to say, “You have to obey the law, damn it!”

By Netbanker

June 13, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

Gee Kimberly…I was with you all the way up to the cosmetics aisle. Make-up is only to enhance appearance which will cause unholy lust in the hearts (and pants) of men to whom they aren’t married. Those jezebelles!

By JT

June 13, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

Wouldn’t tampons be a no no too? Pads only please.

By Scott

June 13, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

Lozen - the comedian’s name escapes me at the moment, but I love the line “Being pro-life and pro-death penalty is truly a fisherman’s mentality….through em back when their little but hook ‘em when they get bigger!”

Ok, so maybe I am prone to dark humor occassionally

By Sandy

June 13, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

Netbanker,

Some companies refuse to allow company insurance to cover birth control period (Wal-Mart comes to mind, for example). My only point is there are alternatives. I would personally not take a job where I felt an ethical dilemma would impact my ability to perform the job. But if I can be employed on my own terms, those ethical dilemmas no longer exist. My only points were that there are other options and many insurance policies do cover prescriptions by mail-order and that as long as it’s consistent within a business, I don’t see how it’s a problem.

By kimberly

June 13, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

JT: Ewww! Netb: Was it Phyllis Schlaffly, or some such anti-feminist that made a big deal out of our womanly duty to be attractive for our husbands? You know, if a man is moral and decent enough to wed a homely woman, then the homely woman should HONOR him by prettying herself up as best she can, without crossing the line into slutsville, I think. I mean, she needs to rouse his affections so they can reproduce.

By Scott

June 13, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Ok clearly my mind is not operating on all cylinders today! “Through” should be “throw”

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

Kimberly - don’t certain conservative sects of judaism throw a sheet up between husband and wife? Who needs beautifyin!

By Netbanker

June 13, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Scott so long as the other reasons aren’t personal BELIEF then there really isn’t a reason for outcry.

I’m assuming you directed the comment at me about not letting them fill any script due to refusal to fill just certain ones. Yep! That’s like a bank teller saying she won’t process the deposits of the adult book store.

By Linda

June 13, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

I was surprised to find the myth of over- population resurfacing in a discussion of the civil rights of pharmacists to be conscientious objectors. The crisis of the depopulation of Europe and the alarming overpopulation of males to females in China have already resulted in social and economic results with catastophic consequences. Remember when the population police said we would all have starved to death by now because of over-population? Instead it appears, our biggest health problem is we all need to go on a diet. But then, overweight could be a blessing. The fewer survivors to draw Social Security will benefit a population which no longer produces enough young to support its aging population.

By lozen

June 13, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, your red state pharmacy is funny! Scott I do appreciate your dark humor. Eaton and Netbanker, it is a slippery slope we’re on and where this will end nobody knows. I hope the sociologist who studies society and its groups is right when he says the “Heartlanders” who want us to return to the 1930’s and 40’s, only make up 27 percent of the population! I don’t know if he did his study before or after Wubya. “Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the wealthy.” Poor people get poorer. The middle class is slithering into extinction. The rich get richer and richer. In a short while nobody but the rich will be alive because nobody else will have jobs or be able to afford health care. Ho hum! Let us all fight with each other - fundies vs. liberals. Let us pay no attention to the politicians and their big corporate buddies. And the media will help because they have the weapons of mass distraction!!!

By Netbanker

June 13, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Kimberly the point is to reproduce not affection. It is not to feel good or be enjoyable. This is about delivering sperm to an egg. You want her pretty then turn out the lights! (I would say fantasize, but I think that would be lusting after another, yes?)

Eaton that is true.

By JT

June 13, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

I like women with “weapons of mass distraction” LOL

By lozen

June 13, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Oh Linda, you are so right. We don’t have a problem with overpopulation. And the rain forests aren’t being hacked down, our rivers are pristine, our air is clean and healthy, there are no dead spots in the oceans, and the glaciers aren’t melting. Silly me.

By Netbanker

June 13, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

“Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the wealthy.â€? Yeah…tell that to the Marie Antoinette and the rest of the French Aristocracy or plantation owners in the carribean during the slave uprisings.

Maybe that’s what we need. The poor people to finally storm the bastions of the rich. Rich folks can’t survive without us…who would work cheaply for them to provide them more wealth and to buy their goods?

By Scott

June 13, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

Netbanker - well it wasn’t pointed just at you, simply a sorth of open-ended question. For example, I had a dispute with a local bistro about their lack of service because they were ” busy” (with 5 employees and 3 customers including me) so I just stopped going there. Yes they are the closest but they will never get my money again. Period. My point was to hurt those you don’t like by hitting their wallets. How long do you think the pharamcy or other business in question would be in business if that was our attitude? Not long, I would bet

As for me, while this world needs many improvements, I don’t think I would care much for the 1930’s (Great Depression) or the 1940’s (WWII) very much

By lozen

June 13, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

The war between the young and the old over social security has begun. “Let’s just get ‘em all to fight! Then we can go ahead with getting richer and they won’t even notice.”

By Scott G

June 13, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

Maybe that is the answer then. Don’t try your local politicians since they are bought, bartered and owned wholey by the radical right; take the direct approach and just lay it on the line to the corporate headquarters of the big chains. Tell them to either adopt a policy that doesn’t allow pharmacists to refuse to fill perscriptions or they will be boycotted and that you will organize against them. The first time their corporate profits dip just watch ‘em scramble to get a policy in place. Hey, its worked for the right wing fundies so why can’t it work for others?

By Netbanker

June 13, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Lozen…that is a sneaky plan. We’ll get the young people to put their money in private accounts invested in stock (of companies owned and run by rich people) The additional investments will cause the stock to rise. The rich will have insider info so they can sell at the high point and flood the market with shares which will cause the stocks to plummet. the young people will never be able to afford to retire so they’ll always have to work. Since the stock has dropped the company won’t be able to afford to give raises and will have to drop all benefits programs to save money to keep the company afloat in an attempt to raise the stock prices. Worked correctly this cycle to continue for a while.

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

yeah, and the fundies will be so distracted boycotting Ford that they will never notice!

Brilliant!

By Scott

June 13, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

SCOTT G - yeah I think that would work…worked for the civil rights movement in the 60’s right….oh wait, maybe that was just good people fighting for human rights and not just an opportunity to slander others…hmmm…oh well

By Netbanker

June 13, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

Scott..that is a good point about boycotts. The fundie boycotts haven’t necessarily been all that effective against very large corporations. Disney didn’t bat an eye nor did several other large companies.

By Linda

June 13, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Sorry Lozen. The depopulation of Europe is a fact. That is why the industrialized western countries are importing their work populations. The depopulation of Chinese females is also a fact and not only has resulted in the death of millions of females in China, but all current social issues like trafficing in women. Attributing all societal ills to over-population is illogical and not based on fact. Artificial population control by those is authority over others, however, results in arbitrary decisions by those in control about who should be allowed to reproduce (i.e. the intention of people like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, to eliminate those she considered to be inferior).

By vonnie

June 13, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

The duty of a pharmacist is to fill prescriptions, pure and simple. Anyone getting into this profession knows ahead of time that there are prescriptions written for birth control pills. If you cannot fulfill your duty due to your personal beliefs, you should get another job or get fired for dereliction of duty. Otherwise, where does it stop? Some pharmacists may oppose other treatments. This is not their decision to make.

By Scott

June 13, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Eaton - You’re likely right…any boycott regardless of basis will have little effect on large corporations becasue it would have to happen on a large scale and, let’s face it, most of this country is too apathetic to give a crap…but hey, you have to look yourself in the mirror on what you think is right, so if you don’t like the policy, do what they do…operate based on your beliefs

By Doug

June 13, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Apparently some of you folks have more money than I do. Because I don’t know about you but if it came down to my “beliefs” over feeding my family, than sorry but my beliefs are taking a hike. I’d like to see how you’d respond if you knew that refusing to fill that prescription would mean that your family would either not eat or be homeless that night. I’m betting that if there were immediate reprecussions, you’d be talking out of the other side of your moralistic mouth.

By lozen

June 13, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, who’ll work cheaply for them to provide them with more wealth and buy their goods? Indians, Mexicans, Balinese, Chinese, among other poor countries, and pretty soon Iraqis, all of whom work cheaper than Americans. Meanwhile, those of us who are managing to scrape by here, are mad as hell at the “welfare queens” not the politicians, corporate welfare, and outsourcing of our jobs (with tax breaks to those companies). Health care for poor children can be eliminated; we don’t care. The important question is: Who is Tom Cruise dating? The religious are foaming at the mouth about liberals and the ACLU/Devil. We liberals actually believe if Kerry had been elected everything would be fine! The army guys in Iraq are mad at the contractors who are making more money, not the lies that got them over there in the first place! And we don’t have to worry about global warming or dying oceans or air pollution; that’s all a liberal plot. Martin Luther King was the last person who suggested the storm you’re talking about, and you see what happened to him. Getting poor people (black, white, hispanic) together? Any attempt at that will be nipped in the bud very quickly! Let’s see. What other groups can we pit against each other?

By AlBruAn

June 13, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

Eaton posted “Fundies, by definition, believe their way of life and beliefs should be forced on everyone else by the rule of law.” Whose definition would that be, Eaton? Yours? It certainly isn’t that of fundamentalists. The vast majority of them believe in the fundamentals (hence the title of fundamentalism) of the Bible including such items as creation, the divinity of Christ, etc. Lumping all fundamentalists together is the lazy way of speaking to the situation.

By Scott G

June 13, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this

I have to strongly disagree with those of you who think boycotts haven’t worked. Yes, Disney didn’t cave and a few others haven’t budged. But they are the exceptions. The successful campaigns are not reported on: Proctor & Gamble, Foot Locker, Safeway, Tyson Foods, Liberty Mutual, Kohl’s and the list goes on. If you don’t believe my, take the time to read the article posted at:

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/29/features-ireland.php

It’s long but worth it. And after you read it you won’t say boycotts don’t work. Stay informed!

By Eaton

June 13, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

AlBruAn, you can’t imagine how unconcerned I am with how fundies define themselves. Would you like my unvarnished definition? Try rabid, hate-filled animals who, like the Nazis before them, believe that they and their belief systems should reign supreme over everyone in the world, that no one is worthy of pursuing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness save those who meet their narrow standards.

I do not apologize for lumping all fundies together, nor do I believe my doing so is “lazy”. I believe that my doing so is more than supported by their own actions and words.

Oh, did I leave out evil? Sorry - my bad.

By Scott G

June 13, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Here we go again, the poor fundies! So helpless and innocent. The put down, oppressed minority that only wants to live by their beliefs!

Gimme a break! All they want is to impose their beliefs on others and if you don’t agree you are the enemy and to be destroyed! Convert or die! Take no prisoners! What a bunch of hypocrits!!!!!!

By lozen

June 13, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this

Oh puhleez, Linda! If not for Margaret Sanger women in the U.S. would not be able to use birth control at all. Margaret Sanger worked for the right of American women to have birth control information. It was already legal in Europe while the Comstock Act in the U.S. made it illegal to give women any information. She went to England to learn methods of B.C. and brought that back to women here. She saw her mother worn out by pregnancy after pregnancy while she was growing up; then she saw women dying in childbirth while working with poor people. She made up her mind to help women and she got the information! Is that what you want Linda? To have women birthing eight, nine, ten kids all their lives? Are you, by any chance, a Catholic?

By Ken

June 14, 2005 07:52 AM | Link to this

Vonnie…

If you think the duty of a pharmacist is to fill prescriptions, then you obviously don’t know how much schooling a pharmacist goes through. If all they did was “fill prescriptions” then we could hire people at $10 an hour to fill pill bottles.

Pharmacists know more about the medications than the doctors. That is their job. Have you ever been in a doctor’s office and seen the pharaceutical reps peddling their wares. Now ask yourself, have you ever seen the same scene at a pharmacy? The two should be working in concert with the doctors to ensure that the appropriate medications get to the patients. In fact, I would probably trust a pharmacist’s opinion about a particular medication over my doctor.

As for filling prescriptions you don’t believe are moral…

Does anyone believe there are doctors out there that don’t prescribe certain treatments due to the moral beliefs? (Answer: there most definitely are) If so is there anything wrong with that? Absolutely not… In fact, some people go to doctors they know have similar moral views. That is the wonderful nature of America. We are free to choose based on any belief we as individuals hold and I would never, EVER want that to be taken from me.

By Lyrazel

June 14, 2005 08:00 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, the book was Phillis Shafleys Total Woman and many adopted the book as justification of male dominance over womens lives. The book was lauded by such poweful women as Tammy Faye Bakkker to comment that she never sleeps without makeup to always be beautiful for Jim. I think they divorced. Is Tammy Fae the Paris Hilton of the Bible-set or is that pink-haired lady? Delta airlines is a company whose insurance provides errectile disfunction pills but no birth control. Most major corporations DO NOT provide BC for their employees nor do most small businesses. It is the Insurance companys decision.

As AIDS reached 1mil in the US I am thinking of these pharmacists who might refuse medication. Someone once said to me, If we dont give them medications they will die and take their sexual preference and their disease to the grave with them.

Yet, I am less worried about christian fundamentalist pharmacists than I am that 2/3 of americans cannot afford these life-saving drugs. I think, if people realize how catastrophic Americas health care is in perhaps the debates of national health insurance at rates all families can afford. We need to totally reform the medical industry just as our (great)-grandparents reformed labor unions, railroads and other giants who suck the life out of working americans. Its not one pharmacist—its the fact our country spends billions but not on its people. Why not? Isnt that—the issue with our health care system? We can send people to risk their lives in war—but cut their benefits, close hospitals—we pay fire and police bare minimum wage to patrol our streets and yet—they dont get free health care? I see patients waiting to see doctors for months—and when they finally reach the doctor they cant afford hospitalization. This is not the fault of christian fundamentalists, but why they are so mute about this ungodly behavior I dont understand, the fault comes because we as taxpayers have allowed our government to run us into being pawns of an industry who sees the average american as a guenia pig for pills with deep pockets.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 08:06 AM | Link to this

Ken, as a pharmacist you aren’t a doctor and it isn’t your place to make decisions about the medical needs of a patient who has been to a doctor. Period.

By Linda

June 14, 2005 08:32 AM | Link to this

Interesting that Hitler should be mentioned right when Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was brought up. Hitler and Singer both believed in and actively promoted eugenics. They wanted to “better” the human race by eliminating those they felt inferior. Margaret did it with birth control and abortion, Hitler with both of those plus euthanasia and, of course, the death camps. Margaret’s Planned Parenthood Group continues to be successful beyond her wildest dreams. According to PP’s own research arm, people of color abort their children in the highest percentile of those aborting. And, of course, PP is at the peak of the money-makers in the abortion industry.

By the way, Lozen, check your family history and note how many times your line came from the fourth child down. Lots of us wouldn’t be here if our ancestors had not welcomed large families. You see, those families and countries who value babies have a future. Those who reject them for convenience and material possessions also reject the future.

By Whiley

June 14, 2005 08:42 AM | Link to this

LOL LINDA you’re nuts !

Are you & Zack married?

By vonnie

June 14, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this

For Ken,

MOst pharmacists should be making $10 an hour. They are supposed to know more about drugs than doctors, but I have questioned some pharmacists about prescriptions (about which I happen to know the mechanism of action), and most pharmacists don’t have a clue and say as much. Pharmacists in the past actually did compounding and may have required more knowledge. Those today mostly count pills. How many times do you read about patient dying or suffering some dire consequence because pharmacists fill prescriptions for drugs that should not be used together (like seldane and erythromycin)—the same pharmacist filling these prescriptions, not a patient going from one to another to get the prescriptions. In my opinion the majority of pharmacists are nothing more than glorified pill-pushers. And as for doctors imposing their moral values on patient treatment plans, how hard is it for a woman wanting birth control to see through the agenda of some fool doctor who just wants to tell her how wonderful it would be to have a child she doesn’t want or dwelling on only the adverse reactions or contraindications for birth control. What are you Ken, a pharmacist? Get a grip on reality.

By Tony

June 14, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this

So Eaton, ya think I’m a tyrant forcing my narrow-mindedness on you.

Never mind the 40 Million already killed and adding millions every year most of which is paid for by hard working taxpayers of whom the majority is against. Never mind that there are Doctors performing late term (up to seven months) abortions daily. Never mind that girls as young as 13 years old are getting abortions. Which by the way should be reported as a rape but very seldom or never is and are being protected by the abortion advocates. Never mind that you can get contraceptives on every street corner. Why hell they even have condoms in roadside rest area restrooms. Never could figure that one out? Every bar in every state contains machines with three or four selections of condoms in every restroom. You can get condoms in Nurses Stations in any high school in the USA. Gas Stations they got-em. 7-11 carries them. Planned parenthood gives birth control for free, and again paid for by us narrow-minded fundies. There are implants, cervical barriers, injections, etc. etc. Pull out for goodness sake.

Yet we have these two irresponsible idiots who definitely do not need to reproduce having unprotected sex. But wait, it gets better, they can go online without even going to a doctor and get the MA Pill delivered overnight. Or they can go to almost any pharmacy anywhere and get what they require.

But a few people holding to their convictions (Which by the way is protected in 15 states) need to find another job because of idiots like these.

Narrow-mindedness. I’ll say!

Oh and Eaton, none of us are worthy and you are in my prayers.

By Brian Curtis

June 14, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this

So now Linda’s also condemning people who choose not to have kids? Is there no end to this forced-fertility agenda? I could’ve sworn this country was supposed to be about freedom of choice.

By Jack

June 14, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

If I own my own pharmacy and choose not to sell certain products, it is my right. Let them go somewhere else. I do have a problem with the pharmacists who refuse to fill the prescription and don’t return it to the customer. That is crossing the line and they should be beaten.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

Linda, your rhetoric is almost laughable. “Those…who value babies have a future”. What do numbers have to do with valuing babies, or even life? You seem to equate uncontrolled reproduction with valuing babies.

So, I’m the youngest of three - does this mean that my father, the oldest of five, didn’t “value babies” as much as his parents? Numbers mean nothing, Linda. Quality of life and love is far more important than quantity, and not having ten children has nothing to do with material posessions or convenience.

Obviously, you have serious issues with responsible reproduction. Your attacks on Planned Parenthood, a perfectly reputable organization, are the predictable responses of a screaming, harassing, lying-down-in-doorways abortion protestor.

By vonnie

June 14, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this

Jack, you are absolutely right on. And the patient from whom the script was taken and withheld ought to get the privilege of doing the beating.

By Ben

June 14, 2005 09:05 AM | Link to this

I’m with Chris Rock, Pharmacists and Doctors are nothing more than the governments drug dealers. All the drugs that are available for every common problem a person has are just feeding the dope man and his family. When a commerical says ask your doctor about “insert drug here” is just like Pookey and Ray-Ray and them asking for a dime bag. lol

By vonnie

June 14, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

So Ben equates blood pressure medications, anti-cancer drugs, diabetes meds, etc. - medications to keep a person alive and/or maintain some degree of a liveable life with illicit drug use? Sounds like Ben has been meeting the Dope Man in some alley, buying and using to much of his product. Ben, your brain sounds pretty fried or scrambled.

By Jeff

June 14, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

People who make the arguement that Pharmacists do not have the right to deny someone their individual rights by denying them the prescription are also forgetting that the pharmacist has individual rights also. Doctors and Pharmacists should be allowed to make decisions based upon their personal beliefs as long as those beliefs do not violate the US Constitution. Your individal rights end when it violates another person’s individual right. This situation is similar to some medical schools trying to force students to take a rotation in “planned parenthood” centers which would require them to participate in abortions. While the woman seeking the abortion has that right, she does not have the right to force another person to participate as a doctor or a pharmacist.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this

You know Tony, not everyone can afford to use illicit online internet services at $70 a pop, and frankly if someone goes to a doctor and is given a scrip for something, they shouldn’t have to.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

um vonnie, you missed the metaphor, dude. Seriously.

By Ben

June 14, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

Thanks Vonnie! I’ve never done drugs in my life, but I’m glad you are trying to figure me out. Instead of seeing it as joke, you like many other people on here who have a hard time making a point, decide you should try to label and attack me. But again, you are wrong! Never used drugs buddy!

I was refering to the commercials that use a laundry list of potential symptoms to target people for their medications and tell you to ask your doctor about them. I don’t have a problem with people who need to use medications to maintain a livable life or to treat disease — they DON’T NEED TV COMMERICIALS FOR drugs.

If my brain is fried it’s because I’ve wasted so much time listening (reading) to people like you who have a hard time accepting someone else’s opinion without verbally trashing them. Next time, read my posts twice and think before you respond to me with ignorance.

By Zack

June 14, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

No, no pharmacist should be forced to fill a prescription when murder is involved. We have individual voices in society, and we need to use them. If the government isn’t going to do anything to protect the unborn, someone has to. These drugs are violations of the Constitution anyway, just as abortion is.

Eaton—You said I was a bigot last week. Coming from you, this is a compliment. The gay rights movement has emitted so much bigotry over the years that it’s downright eerie.

Diane Glass would do well to turn off “Desperate Housewives” and take a long, good look at her worldview.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

Zack, you’re a complete and utter moron. You know that, right?

Please look up the word “bigot” in the dictionary. Your continued misuse of it - not to mention pretty much every other word in you warped lexicon - is beginning to cause me physical pain.

By lozen

June 14, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

Linda, says, “Population control by those in authority over others does definitely result in decisions by those in control about who reproduces.â€? That’s why the only authority over women’s reproductive decisions has to be women themselves. Nothing else anywhere, in any form, has ever worked for the good of the people. Many don’t even realize that we once had population control by those in authority in this country: “The U.S. Congress passed the Comstock Act in 1873, calling it an “Act of the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use.” Named for Anthony Comstock, a zealous crusader against what he considered to be obscenity, the act criminalized publication, distribution, and possession of information about or devices or medications for “unlawful” contraception or abortion. Individuals convicted of violating the act could receive up to five years of imprisonment with hard labor and a fine of up to $2,000. The act also banned distribution through the mail and import of materials from abroad, with provisions for even stronger penalties and fines. Vestiges of the act endured as the law of the land into the 1990s. (Women in American History, Encyclopedia Britannica) I am 100 percent against population control by those in authority and that includes ANY authority that would force women to have children! The only authority over women’s reproductive decisions has to be women themselves. Oh Linda puhleeeeeeze. Comparing Margaret Sanger to Hitler! Do you sheeple have no shame? Rush Limbaugh your hero? And as to your slurs against Margaret Sanger, she was a nurse who saw what happened to poor women who bred over and over. Of course the wealthy and the educated of the time had access to that information anyway and could buy “Frenchâ€? condoms and spermicides (just like safe medical abortion before it was legalized in the U.S.). She was a brave woman who risked her freedom to bring birth control information to women like her mother who had 18 pregnancies and 11 children. I might not agree with everything Sanger ever said in her long lifetime, but I know and I appreciate what she and other women of the time did for me and for all women!

By Tim

June 14, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this

just when I thought it was going to get boring… Zack drops in and makes me chuckle… thanks

Whiley… don’t introduce Zack to Linda… we don’t want them breeding

By Whiley

June 14, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

What’s wrong with “Desperate Housewivesâ€? ????

By Jack

June 14, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

It was better in the old days when there were no commercials for drugs or lawyers.

By Tim

June 14, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Whiley… I was wondering the same thing! :)

By jpetz

June 14, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

Ms. Feldhahn is a little off her rocker on this one. God forbid if she needed emergency medication only to have the misfortune of encountering a pharmacist who refused her medication on moral grounds. Lets face it, anyone can object to anything on so-called moral grounds. The bottom line is this: if you can’t do a job 100% of the time, don’t take it. Otherwise, expect to be fired - its the moral thing to do.

By lozen

June 14, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

Zack probably thinks the dictionary is a tool of the devil Eaton. I think Linda should go make some biscuits for Zack.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

Oh come on Tim, we don’t need to worry. I doubt Zack could figure out the mechanics involved.

By Tim

June 14, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this

lozen… NOOOOOOOOOOO don’t encourage that… we need to keep them away from each other ;)

By SUZAN

June 14, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Eaton, I rest my case you can look in the mirror and know that you too are one of those who claim to be tollerent but in reality are not. You see when it comes to the secularist and liberals views on toe religion of christianty your are the least tollerent of all, but understand it is not just christians you hold this veiw but muslims, and hindus. Im not saying that women should not use birth control but I am saying that you cant force a person to do something that to them is against the teaching of thier faith. I do not believe in a teocratic goverment nor do I believe in prayer in schools Eaton and I am most sadden by you very hostile response. perhaps you would do well to revaluate just how tollerant you really are. I can not forece you to believe as I do but you cannot force me to accept or be part of a lifestyle that I think is wrong

By Bruce

June 14, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

I agree with you. Why should the Pharmicist rights be violated to satify someone else?

By Tim

June 14, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

Eaton… good point

By lozen

June 14, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

You all know if people in this country had had more babies about 18 to 25 years ago we’d have a lot more poor guys to join up and fight in Iraq (and whatever the next country is we decide has weapons of mass destruction and needs to be invaded)! That is the only reason politicians are concerned about abortion. We women are expected to produce cannon fodder.

By Jack

June 14, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this

Well said Susan.

By Akeya

June 14, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this

Pharmacists should be forced to fill these Rx’s if it is in their job description to do so. If you are faced with having to dispense drugs with which you are not comfortable dispensing, either recommend another pharmacist or hit the road and find another job.

Joe- If infanticide were legalized and you didn’t agree, you should probably write a very eloquent RESIGNATION LETTER.

Amanda- The problem is that this issue could go beyond just MAP (morning after pill). What happens when AIDS patients are not dispensed their medication because it may be “obvious” they are gay? What about my sister who takes birth control pills to regulate her cycles? If the pharmacist does not agree with birth control in general, should my sister have to find another pharmacy?

Linda- MAP does not abort. It prevents conception. There cannot be an abortion if there is no conception.

What’s next, will my eggs be monitored? Will I be punished each month that my cycle comes because ultimately our eggs are supposed to be fertilized?

Charles J- I can completely see people refusing to dispense any medication because they believe that it is in HIS divine plan for us to die. If we get sick, we’re supposed to be sick…

Lozen- I agree with your 4:07 post. Has anyone noticed how blacks and hispanics are being compared more than ever? It’s kind of silly, since there are millions of blacks that ARE hispanics (myself included). Just our government and businesses pandering to the hispanic masses to get in on the cash cow that hispanics are becoming.

Linda- having large families made sense before because there was a chance some kids wouldn’t survive, many felt that having more children will be more lucrative for their families-help around the house, farm,but dear….we live in the 21st century. Raising a child nowadays is expensive and it’s impratical, in any country, to pop out kids randomly…

By Tim

June 14, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

not well said Suzan

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

Susan, my dear, you couldn’t be more wrong. I am incredibly tolerant of religious people. I am NOT tolerant of theocratic fanatics who think they have the right to dictate how everyone else lives their lives. They are who I direct my scorn and anger at.

I couldn’t care LESS what religion you follow, be it Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, whatever, and I wager I am better educated about the religions of the world than 99% of the people in this country. Each religion has positives and negatives.

Don’t be fooled, Susan. I despise fundamentalism in all of its forms. I DO believe that it is the greatest threat to modern civilization. Fundamentalists crush science beneath the heel of their blind orthodoxy. Fundamentalists kill without remorse. Fundamentalists drag men behind trucks, pistol whip them on fences and hang them from trees. Fundamentalists fly planes into buildings.

Fundamentalists also always identify attacks on fundamentalism as an attack on religion itself…which makes me wonder at your reaction.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

Ooo, Jack-the-raving-bigot agrees with Susan. Big shock.

By lozen

June 14, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

Suzan, Eaton is a christian! None of us have to be tolerant of stark raving stupidity and people who are determined to impose their childish version of religion on everyone in this country.

By lozen

June 14, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

Well said, Eaton my dear!

By Tim

June 14, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

very well said Eaton :)

By vonnie

June 14, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

So Ben, the way you state your opinion in response to my post makes perfectly good sense. Why didn’t you just make this rational, straightforward comment the first time? Why try to be cute and clever and abstruse and then blame me for misunderstanding what you meant to say? If I handed a printout of your first message to a hundred people, I believe they would have interpreted it the same way I did. I guess Eaton understood it, but Eaton, I don’t believe Ben’s words could rightly be called a metaphor (a simile, perhaps).

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this

Well, vonnie, Ben’s post contained both metaphors and similes. For the sake of convenience, and since the metaphor came first, I went with it.

Thanks for the English lesson, though. Where were you when I was in graduate school.

By Scott G

June 14, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

Like I said yesterday, BC pills have been around for over 30+ years and have been a point of contention from the beginning. Pharmacists know, or should, that they may have to dispense them. If they’ve got an objection, they should be in that business. I can understand if pharmacy chooses not to stock a medication, but when they have it on hand and refuse to fill it, that is wrong. And as some have posted today, where will it end? AIDS meds for gays, respiratory medications/treatments for smokers, where? Anything can be objected to on moral grounds but there must be a standard that sets rules without allowing capricious actions.

By Tim

June 14, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

Ben… I got you what you meant… I didn’t think it was that challenging to understand

Vonnie… don’t be mad at Ben because he didn’t S-P-E-L-L I-T O-U-T for you

By lozen

June 14, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

I once worked as a church secretary and had to send out letters written by the pastor advertising a workshop on changing gays to straight through Jesus! It was against my moral principles and ethical beliefs and I didn’t want to do it. But, I needed the job and if I had refused to send out those stupid letters I would have been out of work. If the pharmacist is not willing to do the job they were hired to do, they should find another job. Just one other note: One person showed up for the workshop; the mother of a gay woman who couldn’t accept her daughter. The pastor spent a lot of the congregations money, and one person showed up! It wasn’t long before I left the job anyway. The pastor was fired by the congregation shortly thereafter. As ye reap, so shall ye sow!

By Jack

June 14, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

Why am I a bigot? Is it because I don’t love you and Tim? You two belong together.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

Actually Jack, it’s because your statements make it clear that you look down on anyone who isn’t just like you. Your words provide an inescapable picture of an old, narrow-minded man who believes that “the good ole days” represented the pinacle of American achievement, when people not up to your standards “knew their place” and didn’t speak out or stand up for themselves.

And if I needed ANY more evidence, your “you and Tim belong together” quote should prove it. You’re a fossil, Jack. Why don’t you go bury yourself, where you belong.

By Chris

June 14, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

I am a pharmacist. A doctor of pharmacy. My job is not to just blindly dispense what the doctor writes, I have training and an education that allows me to make judgements about the drug therapy a patient is receiving. I have also dispensed the morning after pill many times and birth control innumerable times. I personally believe that it is the right of women to have access to these medications. But I also believe that my fellow professionals can have their own opinions. There are gray areas about what the drugs do and how they effect the body, read any package insert on psych drugs. I tell people that they should take just as much time getting to know their pharmacist as they do their doctor. None of these arguements would be happening. If a pharmacist refuses to fill, his livelyhood will disappear, he will be fired or go out of business. It is a profession but it is also a business, just like medicine and law.

By Amanda

June 14, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Akeya, You ask me a question that I actually brought up yesterday about the problem going beyond the drugs first mentioned here. I agree - it is a very slippery slope, and where do you draw the line? If you allow a pharmacist to refuse meds based on one belief with bcp’s, what stops them from acting on another med for aids patients or antidepressants? And I believe you asked me what about your sister who takes bcp’s for cycle regulation and not actually for birth control. I say so did I for 6 years of my life and I personally don’t see a problem with it. Of course, I wrote earlier that I believe refusing the Pill is ridiculous to me (i’m conservative but not THAT conservative and I also don’t feel I have the right to decide for others anyway….) But if you find a pharmacist who doesn’t agree with birth control in general, I would say that yes, you should find another option if at all possible - because at the moment you can’t change their mind and there currently aren’t any laws that FORCE them to dispense bcp’s, so your sister would have an easier time just going somewhere else and not dealing with that particular pharmacist if at all possible.

By Tim

June 14, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

“Ben - Tim & Eaton are girls in men’s bodies. They have giant chips on their shoulders and arguing with them is like trying to reason with elementary school age girls. Wonder how venomous they would be in person as opposed to the blog. They really belong on this woman to woman vent, I don’t. So long folks.”

Jack… this is a post of yours from last week

Tim & Eaton are girls in men’s bodies… referring to gay men as girls in mens bodies… hmmm sounds a bit bigoted to me

They really belong on this woman to woman vent, I don’t. So long folks… so why are you still here??? are you one of those girls in a mans body

By Scott G

June 14, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Chris, I agrree with you that pharmacists are highly trained individuals and that everyone has a right to their opinion. The problem is not the small “mom and pop” stores but the larger chains. If you have a problem with dispensing a particular medication, don’t stock it. Have a posting in the pharmacy to that effect so everyone knows. That is not an issue; where the gray area comes in is when a pharmacy does stock a medication. And as Amanda put, where do you draw the line? It is very easy to moral justify or rationalize any actio, but there has to be a place where it stops. Where is that?

By Chris

June 14, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

There have been many posts about pharmacists just leaving the profession if they object to dispensing certain medications. That is far easier said than done. Most of us love our work, we’ve spent years in school and recent grads may have $100K in school loans. A doctor who does not want to perform abortions can specialize in another area of OB/GYN. A nurse can find another office. An engineer who does not want to design nuclear weapons can design bridges. Pharmacists are generalists, there is no alternative retail pharmacy, there are few alternative sites. A viable option is to inform our employer and customers ahead of time and see how that affects the work environment. Goverment should not trump the employers right to hire and fire appropriate employees for religious beliefs.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

Chris, no one is questioning the education or training of a pharmacist. But - and correct me if I’m wrong here - your training is primarily oriented around the effects, functions, and potential interactions of various drug therapies and medications. Your are not trained as a medical doctor.

So, yes - we know you are better educated than most doctors about the actual effects of the medication, but you still aren’t qualified to make medical judgments about the ultimate needs of the patient, are you?

And, since you are a pharmacist, I’d like to hear your take on the slippery slope arguments presented - what about pharmacists refusing to supply AIDS meds, anti-depressants, etc., because of “moral” conflicts…is THAT OK with you?

By lozen

June 14, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Akeya, yeah. Let’s get the blacks and the hispanics convinced they’re taking jobs away from each other and watch them fight. Let’s get the young convinced they’re giving up all their tax money to support all those old people on social security and let’s watch them fight. Let’s convince the uneducated masses that liberal professors are preaching atheism and free love and hatred for this country and let’s watch them fight! It goes on and on, doesn’t it?

By kimberly

June 14, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Lozen made a great point about cannon fodder. The right-wing oppressor types understand that having a permanent underclass is a benefit to those with money and status. After having one child, I had my bridges blown up. Now I struggle to provide for her to ensure she is educated and can make a future for herself. If I had six children, I would be able to afford music lessons, sports, summer camp, and college for NONE. Hence, more minimum-wage workers to struggle for the bare essentials. Hence, the military recruiters have more bodies to put on the front line to guard the oil on someone else’s back yard. BTW, did you know that one lesser-known provision of the “no child left behind” law is that students who don’t test out at a certain level have their names, addresses, and phone numbers forwarded on to the military recruiters?

By It Happens!

June 14, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this

I was put on Accutane for severe adult acne a few years ago. One month, I was refused birth control by a CHAIN for “morality” reasons, even though they knew I was on Accutane. The condom broke and the spermicidal failed. After stopping Accutane immediately, and praying for a miracle, six months later I gave a dead birth to something that resembled the creature from the Alien movie.

What is moral about my poor baby dieing from severe birth defects?

By Ben

June 14, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

Vonnie - You’ll have to excuse me for having an inkling of a sense of humor. And I should also be chasitsed and put on public display for not referring to my Guidebook for Blog Etiquette. I missed the section where it said I had to name call, criticise and maintain the stick up my a** to speak and contribute.

By kimberly

June 14, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

Chris the pharmacist: Hi! Questions: Based on what you know, what percentage of Americans would you say are on antidepressants? And may I ask what you think of this? Do you think that shrinks are just drug pushers for big-money pharm. corporatrions? Do you think Americans are pill-dependent? I ask because I decided to break free. If I watch what I eat, I don’t need the little purple pill every day. Feel my feelings, and so forth. I stopped being a slave to my CVS counter. Do you think Americans are enslaved by our pill fixation?

By lozen

June 14, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, no I am shocked to hear that about kids who don’t test out at a certain level. I guess they’re be cannon fodder in the future for our empire!

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

The government can’t and doesn’t prevent hiring based on religion. Religion is an ENDA protected class.

There is a difference, however, in discriminating based on religion and discriminating based on ability to do a job. And like it or not, dispensing BC is part of the job.

It is interesting to look at the interaction of religion and such in a city like New York. There are often very interesting and very pragmatic structures in place to accomodate the beliefs of orthodox jews who won’t work on certain days, etc. Job functions are maintained and no ones ethics are challenged.

However, these people aren’t interested in compromise - heck, some of them even try to keep the scrips so that the person can’t have them filled anywhere.

By Ben

June 14, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

Actually Kimberly — All HS juniors and seniors names and addresses are provided to military recruiters regardless of how they score on tests. The practice has been going on since shortly after the draft ended. The recruiters maintain these high school lists to cold call students that are age qualified for enlistment it makes up 70 - 80 percent of the recruiters work.

By lozen

June 14, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

By It Happens, I’m so sorry you had to go through that.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

It Happens, I’m very sorry to hear your story. Perhaps if the moralists of the world heard it, they would be less inclined to behave in such a fasion. Sadly though, I doubt many of them would be moved. Their concern for “life” doesn’t extend to the living.

By JJ

June 14, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

Ben, I knew you would clear that one up! lol

By Ben

June 14, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

You know me JJ! lol. But students have options. The first and most common sense option, is they can request to have their names removed from these lists. Secondly, once you tell a recruiter you are not interested, he or she probably won’t call on you again because most have to make a couple hundred phone calls a day.

By Akeya

June 14, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

One solution would be to make sure that at each and every publicly-funded pharmacy there is a person that will dispense certain drugs alongside the person who refuses to based on their moral beliefs…

Amanda- I can dig it…

Kimberly and Lozen- I have often believed that our gov. is not at all disenchanted with the less/no educated because they will just eventually join the army anyway.

By Scott G

June 14, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

What is a “publicly-funded” pharmacy? One at a public hospital? The issues are with the larger chains who employ several pharmacists!

By Linda

June 14, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

Reality is reality. Native Europeans who are almost 100% secular in the industrialized countries are now at below replacement level numbers. They have imported a work force of Muslims to do the work they have not produced the children to perform. The Muslims do have “family values” and are reproducing. Secular Europe at this rate will become “religious” and that religion will be Muslim with all that history implies for those who don’t agree with that faith.

The USA is a “free” country and people have or don’t have children by their own choice not because of lack of opportunity and information about preventing conception. Pharmacists also have the right to make moral choices and not be coerced by the moral choices of others.

By Scott G

June 14, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

What a line of bull, Linda! The pharmacists ARE making the choices for others. Lady, yoiu need a reality check and are in extremely desperate need of lessons in LOGIC!

By Bruce

June 14, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

I got it. Lets just close down all Pharmacies and allow the doctors and hospitals despense medication. Then all the pharmicists can go on welfare and we, the taxpayers, can support them.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Linda, your facts are deeply skewed. For one, Europeans are not “nearly 100% secular”. Yes, the Catholic Church is losing members in Europe, and yes, more Europeans are starting to leave the church in general, but by no means has the percentage of Europeans who are religious fallen to anything approaching the levels you claim.

You are confusing, wilfully I suspect, the beliefs of many Europeans that religion is personal and private and should not intrude on religion with a rejection of religion and “family values” as you say.

Interestingly enough, the Italians yesterday refused to vote on a referendum that would have relaxed laws restricting artificial conception and led to increased childbirth - at the urging of the Catholic Church.

And really Linda - your comment about the history of not agreeing with their faith…were you talking about Muslims or Christians? ‘Cause last time I checked, Christians were as destructive and murderous, historically, as Muslims. But hey - if you like those rose-colored glasses, keep ‘em on.

By Linda

June 14, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

Those are interesting comments about the US military. Of course, those making them have the freedom to speak freely—even the name calling, etc.— because many American families since the beginning of this country have been willing to put their family members in harm’s way in the US military to fight for our way of life. We are not a perfect country, but obviously people all over the world are trying to come here because we are a free society. I just left a Vietnamese friend, for instance, and I asked her why she and her whole family (parents and seven siblings) came here after the war. She answered me in one word, “freedom.”

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

No one has “fought for our freedom” since World War II.

By Scott G

June 14, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

Right on, Eaton! Tell it like it is. It is comments like Linda’s that are factually incorrect, logically flawed, uneducated, un-researched and untrue, and relying heavily on blind dogma that cause the American fundie/evangelical movement to be branded the “American Taliban” more and more in the media and blogs. Sure hope Linda enjoys wearing her berhka!

By Scott G

June 14, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

Linda, have you ever been in the military and been deployed in a war? I was in the U.S. Navy for six years and was in the Persian Gulf War in 1991. I didn’t fight for any American’s freedom! How dare you parade your ignorance for all to see! It is exactly those who have never sacrificed or placed their lives on the line who are the first and quickest to fling the “freedom” argument around! How dare you!

By Ben

June 14, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

Tread lightly on that one Eaton.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

Ben, sorry to offend your Jarhead sensibilities, but I call ‘em like I see ‘em. I didn’t see you treading lightly on my opinion last week.

By kimberly

June 14, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

I’ll bet it’s not Linda’s husband, brother, son, or daughter mired in the sand with half-a**ed equipment and no exit strategy! If MY loved ones are going to die in uniform fighting in a foreign land, their commander-in-chief had better make some REAL justification for it, not a bunch of lies that change with every passing season!

By Len Hoffman

June 14, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

If the pharmicist owns his pharmacy I think it would be wrong for the government to tell that pharmacist he must sell a med he does not approve of regardless of the reason.

That said, there are not to many pharmacist out there who were trained before the birth control pill was developed. These folks knew they would be REQUIRED by there future employers to dispence meds that involved birthcontrol. If they have converted to a religion that is at odds with this practice then they should find another carreer.

This is just another example of the extreme religous right trying to impose there will over the rest of us. It is time for these people to be marginalized by mainstream politics and the media. Don’t even give their extreme views coverage.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

And just for the record, Ben, not since WWII has the US been in danger of being invaded by a foreign power. Not once. That includes Desert Storm. So, please - tell us how invading a country for its oil qualifies as “defending our freedom”. The ONLY action that was remotely justified in terms of national security in recent memory was the invasion of Afghanistan, and we basically abandoned that one as quickly as possible in pursuit of our illustrious President’s misguided Master Plan.

By the way, that does not mean I don’t respect the soliders who have died in our various conflicts since WWII, it doesn’t mean that I don’t respect YOUR contributions and it doesn’t mean that I don’t respect those serving now. It just means I don’t buy into the nationalistic fervor nonsense that claims that every conflict in which we embroil ourselves involves “defending our freedom”.

By Scott G

June 14, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

I agree, Len. If the pharmacist owns his own business the government shouldn’t be allowed to tell him what to sell. However, if the phamacist has such an issue with a med, they should not even stock it and post that in their store so the customers know. Like you say, this is another example of the oppressed, minority radical rights lies and attempts to force everyone to believe as they do!

By Bruce

June 14, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

No we haven’t had to defend our freedom since WWII because we proved we have the biggest stick on the block. But you could say that after 911 we have every right to defend ourselves. Unless you think the World Trade Center was made to disappear by David Copperfield.

By Akeya

June 14, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Um, Linda… are you really attempting to say that it’s okay to pop out babies like cockroaches? They cost money, you know? As a matter of fact, it costs more to raise a baby in this country than any other industrialized country in the world!

Where is the money coming from to take care of these children?

By Linda

June 14, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Actually world population figures are readily available as are the figures for church attendance in Europe and support what I wrote. Do you mean the “berhkas” that the Afghan women wore before the 9/11 attack terrorist attack on our country prompted the US military to respond and as a side effect “free” the women of Afghanistan from the “berhka?”

As for your attack on the Christian Church, review your history. The Western civilization we enjoy is a product of the Church. Even the university system came from the Church and it was the monasteries of the Church which protected classic literature for us to enjoy today.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

Bruce, let’s not get started on that. You’ll claim that Saddam Hussein had something to do with Al-Qaeda, I’ll point out all the overwhelming evidence that says that was a complete and utter lie. You’ll then say he had WMD, and I’ll - yet again - point out that your are incorrect. Then, I’ll suggest that the entire idea of a “war on terror” is not only a misnomer, but a philosophy that will only serve to increase global terrorism - hey, the numbers support that as well. You’ll call me unpatriotic because I don’t march lock-step with the president, I’ll call you a facist buffoon, and then it will just get ugly.

So why don’t we skip it.

By Ben

June 14, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

Eaton - The only thing that offends me about you is that you are so defensive. I never attacked your opinion last week or ever. I just simply explained the other, or a different, side of it. If me not agreeing with you is “treading on your opinion,” then you are no better than everybody you ridicule on a daily basis.

Perhaps you should really expand your knowledge of the military. I admittedly don’t agree with the war in Iraq, but don’t let that skewe your vision of what the military is all about. Our freedom is not only defined by protecting our shores from overseas threats. World War II is not completely different from the war we are fighting now. The only difference is the time and world we are fighting in. The military doesn’t exist solely to protect our shores. The military is here to defend American allies and to protect American trade from disruption. In addition, dear friends, the United States must maintain a global military presence to uphold democracy and maintain international stability.

We may not be doing the best job at that right now, but that only reflects on our leadership.

By kimberly

June 14, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

Christian Church: Responsible for ongoing wars in Europe throughout the second millenium B.C., the murderous Spanish Inquisition, the murderous Crusades, the ongoing violence in Ireland, the conquest and genocide of the American native peoples, etc. etc. etc. Oh, by the way, they’re still wearing BURKAHS in Afghanistan!

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

Linda, dear, not only am I well-educated in my own right, but I am the child of a PhD in Medival European History. I didn’t get bedtime stories, I got lectures on the Crusades, and the Inquisition, and the Dark Ages, etc. etc. etc.

I assure you, my grasp of church history is complete and accurate. It is you who are ridiculously deluded.

By kimberly

June 14, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

Eaton, don’t call Bruce a fascist buffoon. Just like anyone who’s marching in lock step with the Bushevik LIES, he’s a delusional lemming who has divorced himself from reality in order to feel good about his past decisions. He needs our compassion! And maybe a re-education program… {;->

By Bruce

June 14, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

You are right Eaton. You have forgotten how to apply wisdom to your knowledge so I won’t even try.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Oh really Bruce, and what wisdom do I lack?

By Linda

June 14, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

Actually, it was the Church who saved civilization through the “Dark Ages.” Your bet about my family’s participation in the US military is wrong. We have served in every US war from the American Revolution through Kosovo. That last one, by the way, was to protect the Muslim Kosovars from the Serbs who were trying to annilate the whole population. President Clinton, by the way, was the one who sent my son into harm’s way. Our US military saved Kosovo. And guess what, no oil there. We also saved Bosnia from genocide. I know. I was there when the war began in June 1991 and have been back six times since. Americans not only sent military, but food, supplies, etc. to keep the Bosnians alive. And guess what, most of the civilian help came from US Church groups—people who risked their lives because it was the right thing to do and because all human life is precious— going into a war-torn country to help Christians and Muslims who were being massacred by Communist Serbs who had the third largest army in Europe at the time.

By Jack

June 14, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

Ben, you have made that same post before about Eaton. If its not his way, he attacks and claims he has been attacked or plays the “gay bash” card yet again. Bless his heart. Be careful we musn’t offend him. He may cry in his pillow.

By JJ

June 14, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

Eaton, can you clarify something for me? What exactly is you opinion of the U.S. Military? Not the Commander in Chief…. the military. What do you see as their function? Are they needed?

By kimberly

June 14, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

Linda, I am grateful to your son for his service. Thankfully, Clinton did not ignore the tactical and strategic advice of experienced military advisors when sending soldiers on a mission. Kosovo was not an ongoing quagmire of pride and bad judgment, and almost every American came back in one piece. Praise the Lord.

By Scott G

June 14, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

The question wasn’t about your family but about you. The reason we were in Kosovo is as you say for humanitarian reason, and yes there is no oil there. I can’t see the current regime in Washington doing the same as President Clinton. While the church does many wonderful things for humanity, the medieval church choked civilization, destroyed ancient works of literature and science, and attempted to control kings and monarchs by threatening excommunication. Get your facts straight! Ask Eaton, he can probably enlighten you more.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1814: “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.” Go figure!

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

Whereas you, Jack, just insult and demean everyone based on stereotypes.

By Tim

June 14, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

awww… there’s lil Jackie again… the more you post the dumber you sound :)

By wendy

June 14, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Secular Europe at this rate will become “religious� and that religion will be Muslim with all that history implies for those who don’t agree with that faith.

Linda- what do you mean by that? Do you think that all Muslims are violent? And just FYI—Turkey, which is trying to get into the EU, is a 99% Muslim nation…and they don’t have Islamic law- they have a secular government. And what does “family values” have to do with reproducing?? You can be an unloving family with lots of kids or a loving one with no or one kids. You can’t paint everything with a broadbrush either. Just because someone is Muslim doesn’t mean they are going to have lots of children. My boyfriend is Muslim and he’s not even sure he WANTS children!

as for this—Pharmacists also have the right to make moral choices and not be coerced by the moral choices of others. — isn’t the pharmacist inflicting his or her own beliefs by not filling a prescription? If you don’t agree with filling certain prescriptions, find another friggin job. And pharmacists can’t say, well, i spent all this money on school… it’s not like all of a sudden, there is birth control available and being prescribed. When they made their career choice, if this was an issue they felt so strongly about, they sould not have taken it as their profession. I am a journalist, and I can’t come in to work and say, oh, i don’t want to write an article about that because I don’t agree with the subject matter…do you know what would happen to me? I’d get fired!

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

JJ, the military’s role should be to defend the borders of the US. I also have absolutely no objections to military participation in international matters, provided that participation is part of a large multi-nation coalition and has the support of the international community.

Bosnia, Kosovo, all of those were joint ventures and the world agreed they needed to happen. That is an excellent use of the military, as is using it to assist in other humanitarian efforts.

I do have strong objections to the use of the military to participate in wars of choice, or to preemptively attack other nations.

By Jack

June 14, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

Would love for you to say that to my face Timmie. Then I could give you a big kiss.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

Jack, have you actually added anythng to the conversation this week - other than insults, of course?

You know, it’s interesting. The only person harping on the gay thing is…well, you. Let’s see if we can count all of the snide things you’ve said about either Tim or me this week alone…

Maybe you really do want to meet Tim face-to-face. Maybe you’ve got…repression issues.

By JJ

June 14, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

Eaton, thanks for clearing that up for me, just wanted to ask before my Jarhead sensibilities were offended too. ;o)

By vonnie

June 14, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

I have only found and participated in this chat for a short while. Some things are obvious:

1) No matter what the subject is, the same group of people are going to argue ad infinitum with each other about homosexuality, abortion and fundamentalism.

2)The same group of people are going to once-in-awhile pat there seeming adversaries on the back and say ‘good job’ before they turn around and slam each other again.

3)A certain subset use this site to try to show the world how clever they are—so far, it doesn’t look really impressive.

Do any of you think it is ever possible to stick to the subject at hand and make meaningful comments? I doubt it!! I’m outta here, and I’m sure many will bid be good riddance. Tim, get a life.

By Linda

June 14, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Among other things, the Church developed the free-market economy, invented the university system, was the birthplace of modern science, laid the foundation for the western rule of law, and was a patron of master artists and musicians. It has existed for 2000 years, the longest continually existing human institution. So don’t expect the demise of its influence soon.

I forgot to mention my husband is a Vietnam veteran (again a war fought with two democratic presidents as Commanders-in-Chief). He volunteered to go.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

vonnie, we give a rats a* about your interpretation of the blog. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!

By Tim

June 14, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

Jackie… you really crack me up… ‘say that to my face’… good lord how old r u? 12? grow up lol… I have no problem speaking my mind in person either

vonnie… haha… someone obviously peed in your cornflakes this morning

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Gee Linda, did the Church also invent the wheel? The free market economy? LOL. The western rule of law, Linda, can be traced back to Classical Greece and Rome. And how many scientists executed as heretics do you think would agree with your “birthplace of modern science” nonsense?

Seriously, can I have what you’re smoking?

By Scott G

June 14, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

The church did NOT develop the free market economy, wrong so try again…Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations theorized that the protestant revolution was best suited for a free market economy. The medieval church was hostile to science from its founding 2000 years ago to the present time, wrong again. The church founded the university system to indoctrinate its own dogma into people and they were not islands of free thought until just recently. Really, you need to go back to history class.

By JJ

June 14, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

Okay, back on topic….. Will someone please answer the question that has been put forth by several people, several times. Where will it stop?
A fireman believe meth makers are morally corrupt, and refuse to put out the fire that is caused when their lab blows… the neighbors are in danger, but he is convienced that the meth maker is so wrong and is standing up for his moral code. Respiratory Therapist don’t treat smokers, they abuse their bodies. Nurses don’t treat AIDS patients, lived a sinful life. Police officers don’t protect certain groups related to race, creed, sex or national origin….. Where does it stop???

By Tim

June 14, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

“the longest continually existing human institution”… not sure if Linda was referring to Christianity… but obviously Judaism is older… so is Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism… as I am sure there are others as well

By Scott G

June 14, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

That is exactly the point, JJ. Where does it stop? Although, race, creed, and national origin are federally protected classifications - for now. Where does it stop? Does it stop only with MAP’s and BC or other drugs, HIV meds, antidepressants, etc.? Do other professions jump on the band wagon like the police and fire depts.? That is the troubling question that no one seems to have an answer to, and it must have an answer!

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Tim, Christianity pre-dates Islam.

:-)

By kimberly

June 14, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

I’d like to respond to the bashing of Christianity and the Christian Church by saying that the reason they are bash-able is because they lost the teachings of CHRIST along the way! I’d never agree to Christ-bashing, as (a) my Lord ROCKS, and (b) the Romans already did that. Please know that there are plenty of us who dig on Jesus that reject the church in all its many forms over the millenia.

By Tim

June 14, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

well then I am going to have to inform my world religions professor of that Eaton

By Tim

June 14, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

never mind… don’t know what I was smoking… was going off of what I did almost 5 years ago… and we studied each religion in order of oldest to youngest… we did study Islam after Christianity… no clue what I was thinking… but the other 3 are older than Christianity… so I was 75% correct :)

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

Muhammed was born in roughly 570 AD…

By Tim

June 14, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

I know Eaton… that was a very dumb mistake that I am VERY embarrassed I made… Dr. Lewis would be very disappointed (especially since I got an A lol)

By Scott G

June 14, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

Tim, Eaton is correct. Islam didn’t appear till the 6th century a.d. and church writings are much older. :+) Sorry, dude your world’s religion professor is incorrect.

I agreed with you kimberly. The church definitely doesn’t follow Jesus’s teachings, in fact, they are behaving exactly like the one group Christ condemned most - the Pharisees. And for the same reason, hypocrisy. The church is the biggest distorter of christ’s teachings to have ever existed.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

I’m calling him and having that grade changed. :-)

By Tim

June 14, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

geez Eaton… cut me some slack… it was 5 years ago lol thank God for essay mid-terms and finals :) lol

Scott G… nah I was the dumb a this time lol… ol Dr. Lewis was right I just had a brain fart

By lozen

June 14, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

Linda is just full of sh— if you’ll pardon my french.

By Scott G

June 14, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

LOL….it’s so hard to date some the religion’s beginnings anyway.

By Tim

June 14, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

I agree Mah :)

By lozen

June 14, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

This Thursday, Rep. John Conyers will begin the investigation of the Downing Street memo with hearings on Capitol Hill. Rep. Conyers was outraged to discover that the pre-war intelligence and facts were “fixed” around the policy of invasion, and that George Bush refused to answer the letter he and 89 other Members of Congress wrote in search of the truth. You can sign a letter of support by going to this address: http://johnconyers.campaignoffice.com and click on “Downing Street Memo F” on the left-hand side of the page. Read and sign, then relay to friends near and far. Remember what Gandhi said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

By Scott G

June 14, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Back to the topic though, where does it stop if it is allowed to start?

Come on, guys, someone throw out some theories!

By lozen

June 14, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

I will refuse to register students at this university unless they belong to the “right” religion.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

Scott, I tried to discuss this yesterday myself, but gave up in the face of the “it’s all about abortion” tide. Personally, I think a scary trend is being set, where we say it’s OK to shirk one’s professional responsibilities at the expense of others, because of “ethics”.

A concientious objector in war hurts no one - he refuses to fight because he has ethical problems with war. He is putting nothing but himself at stake. However, these pharmacists are playing with OTHER people’s lives - not their own.

It’s just another step before we see, if not police and firemen, certain medications not being dispensed because the pharmacist disapproves of the “lifestyle” of the person behind the illness.

By Ben

June 14, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

I think all of the theories have been thrown out there. It’s such a monotonous subject. It really boils down to whether their morals supercede their obligation to do their job. Most people say NO! The “what ifs” only stray from the real subject. You can throw them into any argument and you end up with exactly what we have here — People incapable of listening to someone else’s view and trying to one-up the next person.

By Ben

June 14, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

Concientious objector’s are like people who build houses at the bottom of volcanoes. Why would you join the military if you have ethical problems with war.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this

They were drafted, one would assume.

By Scott G

June 14, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

I would hope a concientious objector was drafted. I volunteered to join, I have no qualms about a justified war only ones waged for economic and imperialistic reasons.

No, not all theories have been thrown out. The subject is “should pharmacists be allowed to refuse to fill certain perscriptions on moral grounds.” That is a very inocuos subject but it has troubling connotations that go along with it that should be answered before the main subject is finalized.

If you don’t want to fill a perscription on moral grounds, don’t stock the medication or find a different profession. It’s not like the rules have just suddenly changed. But, if pharmacists are allowed to decide not to fill med “x” today for map/bc tomorrow it may be med “y” for treatment of HIV/AIDS based on “lifestyle.”

Talkiing of moral responsibility is fine and good, except that these people are decided for “others” about their health without the medical qualifications. I can’t think of any profession where there is at least one task that someone does on a daily basis that is not somewhat morally questionable to someone, and yet the people do the jobs. I don’t really think that morals objections are what is driving this argument.

I guess that my education level and the ability to think independently for myself does not let me see this issue in quite the black and white some other posters do but in varying shades of gray.

By lozen

June 14, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Many people join the military in time of peace because they have limited options. My family had no money or interest in helping me go to college; I thought I could go to college in the military. I wanted to see the world, travel, wear a uniform. I was in the Civil Air Patrol and I loved planes! Yes, some of my reasons seem silly; I was 16 when I decided I wanted to be in the Air Force. What would I have done when Vietnam came along a few years later? Probably I would have been kicked out because I was against that military action. As a woman I probably would not have been sent to Vietnam, but my male peers were. I knew in my heart Vietnam was wrong and had I been male in the military, I could not have gone over there to kill people. There was a draft at the time of Vietnam and the men who became conscientious objectors were drafted. How many of the national guard over there now for the third time knew they would ever see action? Does that answer your question, Ben?

By Linda

June 14, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

If you make that Judeo-Christian, we are talking 4000 years. Thank you for bringing it up. Actually, I am a teacher. To quote historian Will Durant—an agnostic— “The basic cause of cultural retrogression (during the “Dark Ages”)was not Christianity but barbarism; not religion but war..the destruction would have been worse had not the church maintained some measure of order in a crumbling civilization.”(Durant, CAESAR AND CHRIST, MJF bOOKS, 1950,79).

By Tim

June 14, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

oh now… Judea-Christianity doesn’t count… Jews win at being older

By Tim

June 14, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

that should be… “oh no… Judeo-Christian…”

By Netbanker

June 14, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

I think Ben’s 3:05 post pretty much sums up the uderlying question…do one’s morals supercede one’s job responsibilities when there is a conflict? I suppose that the bottom line for an employee is to not accept a job that creates such a conflict and for employers to fire those who refuse to do their job. Upon reflection Bruce’s course of action to complain to the manager and store owner will likely be effective in cases of a chain owning the pharmacy.

I don’t think I’ll have much more time to join in this week due to being dumped on at work. But I will definitely drop in next week to fill you in on the family reunion this weekend during which I’ll most definitely be asking certain staunch Republican family members what they think of their beloved W in light of the Downing Street revelations that also support 2 ousted Administration officials statements of the same.

The sad thing is I doubt that there will be a serious investigation or even impeachment hearing for Bush. It must be a conservative thing…blow jobs BAD, war GOOD..lies are just part of politics so that really isn’t the impeachable offense anyway.

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Ben, no one already worshiping at the shrine of “W” will give the Downing Street memo any credence. Most of them probably don’t know what Downing Street is.

By Netbanker

June 14, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

In today’s world many of them are more like Judo-Christians.

By brenda ford

June 14, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

If we allow professionals to limit their partice to their personal beliefs, then we are risking our basic freedoms which our forefathers fought to obtain for us.

This is America, and we all have the freedom of choice. That choice is ours and ours alone, I do not have the right to force my beliefs or choices on others, not do others have the right to force theirs upon me. When a Pharmacists makes a decision because of their belief, they have volidated my rights, under the Consitution. NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOW TO TAKE AWAY OUR FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

By Ben

June 14, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

Lozen - Not really. But you are right, a lot of people join the military because they want all of the benefits without the reality. A lot of people over there for the 3rd, 4th or even 5th time didn’t think they would see as much action, but the reality is that’s what they signed up for, it goes with the money for college, travel and free health care.

Most theories have been exhausted because everyone is stuck on the what ifs. What if the police, what if the fireman … Well what if the sky was pink? What ifs do not lead to logical conclusions.

Education and independent thinking have nothing to do with exploring this topic. This is actually black and white whether you realize it or not. It’s a question, should they or shouldn’t they? Delving into moral beliefs is ridiculous because not everyone has the same morals. It only facilitates the sophmoric exchange of insults and degradation because people on this blog have proved week in an week out to be incapable of intelligent, productive discussion. People scream intolerance, yet they aren’t very tolerant themselves, people call others bigots, yet they are very wishy washy themselves.

By Netbanker

June 14, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

It is the Jewish year 5765. Linda you’re still missing about 1700 years for the Jewish part.

By Tony

June 14, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

By forcing pharmacist’s to fill prescriptions contrary to their belief your violating their autonomy, integrity and basic human rights in a country that protects those rights.

Second, many posts have cried that if Pharmacist’s did not have to fill a MA prescription, (and those posting about the pill wise up that’s not the issue) where would it end? Next would be AIDS prescriptions? Talk about hypocrisy. How many times must it be said that there is a conscience clause in existence today in 15 states and those screaming wolf, please enlighten us of one case any case where someone was denied any drug other than the MA Pill.

And lastly, If abortion (40 million and millions more yearly) is any indication, forcing a pharmacist to fill a prescription for a MA pill, next will be assisted suicide and then euthanasia.

Indeed, where would it end?

By Eaton

June 14, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Ben, the what-ifs are what make discussions interesting, and relevant. If you just want to answer the basic question posed, then where’s the fun in that? Why are you afraid to delve into deeper issues?

As for your “people scream intolerance” etc. comment - yeah, I accuse people of being intolerant, because they ARE. I call them bigots because they ARE. Bigotry is hating an entire class of people because of what they are. A member of that class despising the people who hate them isn’t intolerance or bigotry - it’s survival.

By Ben

June 14, 2005 05:06 PM | Link to this

Exactly my point Eaton, we weren’t discussing the what ifs because the bible thumpers and the bible thumper thumpers were off on their usual rant. The real discussion should be when does your moral beliefs trump mine? Not if the Jews came before the Christians or what if George W. wears women’s underwear.

By Netbanker

June 14, 2005 05:07 PM | Link to this

Whoa! Hold on there Ben about the what if’s not leading to logical conclusions! I’ve been using what if scenarios for 14 years as an analyst to help reach logical conclusions about how to design a system or process that handles exceptions as well as what is needed. I think it depends on the topic to which the what if’s are applied and how they are done. Please don’t throw my what if baby out with the bath water.

I do agree that when it comes to morals or faith the what if scenario isn’t very helpful in that each person has a different opinion or view that is equally valid because that’s the nature of faith and morals.

By Ben

June 15, 2005 07:29 AM | Link to this

Netbanker - My bad. lol. What ifs are great depending on the scenario because they help you prepare for all possible outcomes. This just isn’t the case.

By the way Eaton, survival is how you justify it. But what if they justified it the same way. In their eyes you oppose everything they stand for making you the bigot and them the survivors. It’s a circle and you are all caught in the flow.

By Bruce

June 15, 2005 08:04 AM | Link to this

See Eaton, you answered your own question with your 4:58 post yesterday, very unwise. You seem to be an intelligent peron but somewhere along the way you have decided you are the smartest, knowledgable person on EVERY subject and its off with anyones head that disagrees with you. You even attact those that do agree with you sometimes. Again where is your wisdom? You can’t be right all the time on every subject.

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 08:11 AM | Link to this

Bruce, neither can you, but you seem to think that you are. And again, I don’t think that my statment is incorrect.

Ben, the difference between me and the others is that while I am perfectly content for them to live their lives as they see fit, they do not extend the same respect to me. Instead, they believe that the fact that they belong to a majority means they get to dictate which rights I do and do not have. So, I’m going to stick with my survival explanation.

By Ben

June 15, 2005 08:22 AM | Link to this

Very well Eaton, and you have every right to rationalize how you want to. But do realize, they probably feel the same way you do and there is obviously no middle-ground. So to both sides, keep fighting the good fight. lol.

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this

However, I’m perfectly willing to try and delve deeper into the moral and ethical implications of the topic without going off on a tangent provided everyone else will promise to try as well.

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 08:33 AM | Link to this

Ben, buddy, I don’t need to rationalize. The last time I checked there wasn’t an anti-fundamentalist marriage ban on the books, nor have there been any recent reports of fundamentalists beaten to death. Nor are there websites calling for the death of all fundamentalists, the shipping off of fundamentalists to an island, or the incarceration of fundamentalists in concentration camps. There is no one standing up on national television claiming with a straight face that New York was targeted by God because of the fundamentalists there. No one is suggesting that hurricanes strike the Florida coast because Disney is a refuge for fundamentalists.

So Ben, you can take your accusations of rationalization and stick them.

By Ben

June 15, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this

Eaton - That’s your problem! Like I said yesterday, you are too damn defensive. I am slowly seeing more and more why people get sick of talking to you on here. You, and I think you have said this about others, act like a 10 year old. Your little hissy fits are ridiculous. Your attitude prevents anybody from having adult conversation. You get so p** off when people don’t agree with you and your defense to anything is to name call and make stupid a* comments like, “take your accusations of rationalization and stick them.” What did I accuse you of Eaton?

Well guess what, you can’t and won’t out talk me and run me off like you did some of the others buddy. You really mask your intelligence when you go off on your hissy fits.

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this

I don’t really care Ben. Sorry that I don’t meekly sit by and get trampled on, or that I speak up even though you think I shouldn’t. Sorry if you misinterpret passion and anger for “hissy fits”, as you call it. We aren’t all emotional robots.

By Ben

June 15, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this

Eaton - I know you don’t care! And no one is asking you to meekly sit by and get trampled on. No one is asking you to not speak up either. I don’t misinterpret anything. Your little fits are exactly that, little fits. Making your point without name calling and lame a* 10-year-old comments is not passion — it’s juvenile. “Emotional robots—” that’s a good one. I am hardly an emotional robot because I don’t tell you to take your opinion and stick it. I am hardly an emotional robot because I can make a point without putting others down.

By Bruce

June 15, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

And when it is pointed out to you instead of admitting you are/could be wrong you act like a two year old and say will you did it, or begin the name-calling attack. I only know you from this blog but I belive that if I knew you personnaly I could gain from your knowledge. But your attitude would probably prevent that from happening. Respect is earned not demanded.

By SUZAN

June 15, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

Eaton some here said you are a Christian well if that is so then I find your form of religion most sad it seems that you derive most of your pleasure and feeling of superiority from insulting people on this post that is very sad I do say you are most intollerent and have not yet learned the value of the true Christian faith which is tollerance to your brother do good to those who do evil to you love your brother as yourself and love your God with all your heart mind and soul I do not see those qualities in you based on what you write but I could be wrong I do keep to my opinion that you can not force someone to sin becasue one wants to live a certain lifestyle there was also a comment about denieing people with HIV drugs but I ask what about euthinasia on the old and the infirm could this kind of law be pushed to force someone to despense drugs that would casue anothers death should it become legal to euthinise these type of patients I would err more to the side of caution than forcing someone to dispence drugs that have the effects of either causing the body to abort or stopping the conception of children if it is against their core beliefs. Life to some of us is more precious than the convinence of a lifestyle we have already become a nation that does not value life any longer and it seems that the trait of a disregard of life continues to grow. We are a sad nation right now

By Ben

June 15, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this

Suzan - Why should your core beliefs supercede the decisions that other people make? Your religion, your morals and your beliefs are just that — Yours!. When you are performing a service to the public, those beliefs and morals should take a backseat to the job you are paid to do.

By SUZAN

June 15, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

Ben I am sorry but you are wrong on this if you force someone to do somthing with goes againt thier core beleifs you devalue that person and you violate that persons right to religous freedom. There are enough places that the dispensing of drugs should not be an issue since our society us so mutlifaceted, but forcing a pharmacist to dispense drugs that in effect cause harm to a life as in the ru-24 pill is a direct violation of thier rights to do no harm, the very thing they take an oath on when they become a pharmacist. just because you serve the public does as a pharmacist does not give the public a right to cause this person to commit to them is a sin or againt the very oath they take. That would be like forcing a doctor to do an abortion on a women who only want to rid herself of a problem and does not need it in order to save her life.l No one can force that on a doctor and no one shiuld be able to force that on a pharmacist

By Ben

June 15, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this

Suzan - That’s makes sense, but you are basing that on their beliefs that are brought on by religion. The same laws that give them their right to practice their religious or moral beliefs, allows people who don’t share those beliefs to live their life. I honestly don’t know the pharmacists oath that they take, but I know that a pharmacist is a person licensed to prepare, preserve, compound and dispense drugs. I don’t see where that practice allows you to judge what is right or wrong for other people when it is not based on a medical opinion.

By Tim

June 15, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

Suzan… I am offended when I have to talk to stupid people at work… does that mean I can hang up on them? someone shouldn’t force me to answer stupid questions these people ask… it is against my religion

if you are hired to do a job then do it… if it is against your religious beliefs… find an employer who is sensitive to your beliefs

By SB

June 15, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

But, SUZAN, this isn’t an equal opportunity issue.

The pharmacist knew when he or she was entering the field that birth control pills were being prescribed (which is not the issue, but bear with me). They knew they would have to dispense such pills, and knew that it not just likely, but probable, that future research would further the field of reproductive pharmaceuticals.

They went into the field knowing all of this. Furthermore, they are being paid to dispense the drugs. The patient, who has already gone over the very personal and private medical details with their doctor, is paying for what is legally thier right.

I went into my career knowing that, eventually, I will probably have to do something completely reprehensible to my personal morals. However, I made the decision to take the good with the bad, and I stand by it.

By Ben

June 15, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

Suzan - I actually did some quick research and didn’t find the oath, but I did find the pharmacists’ code of ethics. Rathering than boring you with the entire code, I’ll point out a few things:

II. A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in a caring, compassionate, and confidential manner.

A pharmacist places concern for the well-being of the patient at the center of professional practice. In doing so, a pharmacist considers needs stated by the patient as well as those defined by health science. A pharmacist is dedicated to protecting the dignity of the patient.

III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.

A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.

IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.

A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act with conviction of conscience. A pharmacist avoids discriminatory practices, behavior or work conditions that impair professional judgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the best interests of patients.

I will continue to look for the oath, but from what I gather so far, it seems that the patient comes first, and while the pharmacist may advise, they must respect the desire of the patient and the medical professional prescribing the medication.

By Ben

June 15, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

OATH OF A PHARMACIST

At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of 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 embrace and advocate change in the professional of pharmacy that improves patient care.

I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of responsiblity with which I am entrusted by the public.

By SUZAN

June 15, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this

As I said Ben there are enough pharamcies around to find someone to dispense the drugs you want based on your lifestyle. We however have a protected right in this country to pratice religous freedom and the Phamacist take an oath much like the hippacratic oath that says they shall knowingly do no harm to people. I also comment that a doctor that does not want to do an abortion based on lifestyle choices is not obligated to do so either. It may well be that Medical Opinion says that an abortion would not be harmful to the woman but the dcotor is not obligated to commit the act if it is against his beliefs. That is one of our protected fundemental rights in this country. I personaly think that it is sad when we as a nation have come to a point where we have to wrestle with the issue of life and death of fetus/infants based on convenice. People(men and women) do not take seriously the responsibilty to not find themselvs in this position before they commit the acts of thier free lifestyle. This to me is irresponsible and therfore the choices they have made should not force someone else to go agaisnt thier beliefs to clean up others mistakes. Perhaps person resposebilty should be pushed as an option to mistakes

By Mark

June 15, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

I am a pharmacist who has no problem dispensing morning after pills and birth control. However, I think Shaunti comes comes the closest to how I feel on this topic. It becomes a very dangerous environment of care when a pharmacist’s right to excercise their clinical judgement is compromised by mandates that they must fill a prescription by law. There is a clear need established over 100 years that proves pharmacists must exist in the medication supply-chain to help oversee the drug distribution system. That is why you cannot get medication directly from your doctor’s office—other than samples. One of the main roles a pharmacist plays is to evaluate the safety, appropriateness, and therapeutic outcomes of a physician’s prescription. If that role is removed by demanding a pharmacist fill certain prescriptions by law—no matter what the reason, medication errors rise and patient health-care declines. There are scientific journal articles in the thousands proving the roles pharmacists play in the health care delivery system and the positive outcomes provided. Legislators need to stay away from this issue and allow the doctor-pharmacist-patient relationship to continue to evolve in ways that positively affect patients without their intervention. For the record, I support over-the-counter versions of the morning after pill and would dispense it freely without prejudice or judgement.

By Whiley

June 15, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

A young women is refused her regular birth control pills, ends up missing a few days due to not having the pills available. She ends up pregnant. Can she sue the pharmacist for 18 YEARS OF CHILD SUPPORT?

By Netbanker

June 15, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

In defense of Eaton only those who are also gay or lesbian have walked a mile in his shoes and understand what it is like. Read his list and THINK about what those statements say about how our society treats this minority group. How many Christians on here have been literally spit at or screamed at through a megaphone by gay folks holding signs telling them God hates them? Ever been physically attacked for being a Christian minding your own business? Ever been verbally attacked coming out of the dry cleaner or grocery store? Ever had your Christianity be the reason people talk behind your back at work or stop talking to you even when you aren’t ‘religious’ at work? Look at the list of things that he posted and especially focus on the legislation targeted at a group that compromises 10% max of the population.

Gay people are attacked EVERY DAY in some way and it’s primarily by the self proclaimed Christian faithful. You finally get to a point where it’s damn near impossible to continue taking the high road, not get mad, and start to fight back. Do any of you realize how hard it can become to find some news article condemning you while at the same time these same people claim not to hate you? ‘We don’t hate you, but we won’t let you have access to equal protection under the law so we can continue to SH*T on you.’ You don’t think that after a while you wouldn’t get hoppin’ mad?

We know that it isn’t ALL Christians, but where is the outrage or even denunciation by REAL Christians of these hate mongers? Where are the REAL Christians just as loudly pointing out that Jesus said what they’re doing is WRONG? Where are the REAL Christians publicly proclaiming the message of Christ’s LOVE and HIS mission to reach out to those on the fringe and treat ALL people with dignity and respect?! It becomes difficult to remain tolerant of Christians who allow radicals to claim their mantle and to become their mouth piece if only because they remain silent and do NOTHING to refute the messages filled with hate. That silence makes you an accomplice to and enabler of ‘Christian’ hate. If these statements rankles a few Christians here think about why? Could it be because there is more than a grain of truth to them? Will you continue to remain silent or take back your religion?

We ask why moderate or progressive Muslims remain so incredibly silent in the response to radicals who’ve hijacked Islam and use it to justify hate and violence. Ask yourselves the same question replacing Muslim with Christian and Islam with Christianity.

By SUZAN

June 15, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

That was interesting Ben thank you. This line I found interesting “A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act with conviction of conscience.” To Act with conviction of Conscience. Hmm this then is my point. Conscience is most often connected to ones core beliefs in right and wrong is this not so?

By Ben

June 15, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

You have a right to practice religious freeedom as long as it doesn’t encroach upon other people’s beliefs Suzan. And a pharmacist denying medication because of his religious freedom is definitely encroaching upon the rights and beliefs of others. No one is saying that you don’t have those rights, but your rights do not trump the rights of others. I don’t remember who said it, but someone once said something to the effect — Your rights end where mine begin.

The fact that there are other pharmacies does not address the obligation of the pharmacist to do his or her job.

By Ben

June 15, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

Netbanker - Couldn’t agree with you more. But notice your approach as compared to that of others. Your message is received without being clouded by the effect of negative comments. People will only respond to the insults, name calling and childish behavior instead of focusing on your message; therefore, missing the logical and intellectual discussion.

Relying on name calling, negative comments and insults would lead one to believe that you resort to that tactic because you lack the ability to rationally make your point.

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

I work in a field that includes some very decent people and some people that are absolute scum - the kind of people that rip off, terrify and take advantage of the elderly in order to get their hands on that person’s hard-earned savings. Unfortunately, I don’t have the option to tell the scum to go away. If they get tripped up and caught, then yes - we can sever our relationship with them, but until then I am forced to deal with people that I consider morally reprehensible.

My company is prohibited from severing these relationships without cause by various state and federal regulations.

By Tim

June 15, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this

very well said Netbanker :)

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

Ben, where is your scorn for all of the name-calling, insults, etc. heaped upon Tim, myself, and others by people like Jack, Zack, Hard40, etc.? Where was your outrage at juvenille behavior when Hard40 was writting diatribes that used the word F* over and over?

I would be far more likely to accord you credibility if you had spoken out against those people at the same time you were accusing me of being childish.

By Ben

June 15, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

Suzan - But the next sentence reads, “A pharmacist avoids discriminatory practices, behavior or work conditions that impair professional judgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the best interests of patients.”

By SUZAN

June 15, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

Sorry Ben I just dont follow my rights a a human in the USA to practice my religion is protected by the Constitution of USA and because someone chooses to use a morning after pill for unprotected sex does not mean that I have to assist with this if thier mistake is the case. Also Marks comments were very pertinent. Mark spoke of a responsibility by the pharmacist to protect to patients he serves but that does not mean that a pharmacist has to assit with the taking of a fetus’ life

By lozen

June 15, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

Netbanker, thanks for your succinct statement about Eaton. I am not offended ever by Eaton’s anger. I understand it just as I understand the anger of African American people and Native American people and women and other disenfranchised groups. Those who take offense are all conservatives (self proclaimed or obvious by their comments and mostly men). I do not believe Eaton has ever acted as if he knows everything or will not listen to others’ opinions to anywhere near the extreme of a few others on this forum. And your comments about “the other” christians who just go along with the fundies is a point well taken.

By It Happens!

June 15, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

Whiley

No. I attempted to sue. Read up for my first post.

By Netbanker

June 15, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

Mark..the difference here is between “a pharmacist’s right to excercise their clinical judgement” and exercising their MORAL judgement. I agree that there shouldn’t be a law forcing them to dispense due to the conflict it creates with professional judgement. What I do object to is that when a pharmacist uses a personal, moral reason not to dispense a medication if there is no valid reason not to dispense for clinical reasons.

By Ben

June 15, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

Well Eaton - Let me explain. I originally wasn’t pointing fingers at anybody. You spoke up to defend your actions, which is why this dialogue started between us. Jack, Zack, Hard40 or whoever else, didn’t warrant a response from me because of a few reasons. One, by responding to them you only provoke their ignorance and it usually interferes with the conversation. Two, I don’t value any of their opinions because of the way they choose to conduct themselves; therefore, I IGNORE THEM. They are only trying to provoke you, Tim and the others and you let them. Sometimes the most powerful words are not spoken.

My credibility on this blog is of very little importance to me. But if you take a look at my stance on everything I have discussed you will notice a couple of things: One, you will be hard pressed to find instances where I have verbally attacked anyone. Two, I make my point without trampling on what someone else thinks. And Three, I am nobody’s side except mine — I just argue for what I believe regardless of who says what.

By Ben

June 15, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

Lozen - Let me ask you a question since you bring up African-Americans? Who was more successful in the Civil Rights movement MLK or Malcolm X?

By lozen

June 15, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Suzan’s comments at 11:02 show clearly that she has no empathy whatsoever for any woman who needs birth control pills for whatever reason or the morning after pill even if she’s a married woman and the couple got a little carried away last night, or the condom broke. The potential life of zygotes, fetusus, clumps of cells, even something that hasn’t even implanted on the wall of the uterus is so much more important than the life of a living, breathing women! You are entitled to your religious beliefs. If you can’t do your damn job though you need to do something else. Surely god would find another job for you.

By SUZAN

June 15, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Netbanker, it is sad that there are people who profess to be Christians and yet do not know the meaning of the faith to which they lay claim. I do not care one bit if Eaton is gay or not. I do not care if he chooses to be a christian buddist or wiccan what I find insulting as a person is the way he spews out insults and nasty remarks and call ths passion I call it bad upbringing and an inabli ty to debate with out showing his insecurity. Better he should be polite and people may actually care about what he has to say. I do know through is writing that he is intelegent and articulant but very insulting. This has nothing to do with his being gay and that is a total cop out it has everything to do with being polite and useing the brain he so obviously has to make a point and not insult people because they have a different view than his

By Ben

June 15, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

Suzan - You are correct, but Mark also never mentioned his moral or religious rights. The morning after pill doesn’t take a fetus’ life. It actually prevents around 800,000 abortions, so which side of the fence are you on? Would you rather wait for that person to have an abortion, or would you halt the biological process from producing a fetus? Talking about the mistake or lack of judgment after it happens is not very productive in dealing with the situation.

By Bruce

June 15, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Netbanker,

My comments to Eaton had nothing to do with being gay or lesbian. He demands everyone respect him while he has no respect for anyone. That is unless you agree with every word he types.

By Tim

June 15, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

Netbanker… I really enjoyed your post… very well said

By Philip

June 15, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

If a pharmacist’s moral standards conflict with the ability to do his/her job, then I suggest convincing their church to open a pharmacy in the basement. That way they can preach their sermons AND play out their God-complexes all in one convenient location. Not likely to make much money that way, but their ‘moral feelings’ will be assuaged.

Otherwise, they should consider a new career - perhaps politics?

The rest of the world can then march forward without eduring the sermons of the street-preacher/pharmacist, can pick up their condoms and prescriptions without being subjected to lectures and moral brow-beatings, and get back to their own private lives, jobs, and personal decisions.

Look, I don’t work in the medical field, but I’m not allowed to proselytize at the office either - political opinions or religious beliefs. We do this out of respect for those around us. I keep it to myself and do my job. What makes a pharmacist’s job any different than that?

By mel

June 15, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

Netbanker, I agree with you 100%. It probably doesn’t mean much, but the points you made in your post are what drove me to the point I am now on my spiritual journey. I was an active member of my church for years, but I just can’t wrap my mind around the fact that we (they) denounce homosexuality and welcome everyone else with open arms. I think most of the silent Christians you spoke of are silent out of fear. They are convinced that in order to be faithful, you have to blindly follow the leader. My husband asked one of our ministers why there was so much focus on gay marriage and not on adultery or the many out of wedlock births our congregation has seen. Do you know what his answer was? “Well, I think we have to focus on the issue at hand. You have to pick your battles, and this is something that Christians have to fight right now.” ???? Both of us are disgusted and disillusioned.

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Suzan, you’re being judgemental and jumping to conclusions when you assume that someone wants the MAP because they participated willingly in unprotected sex.

What about a rape victim? What about someone who has a condom break? You’re automatically assuming the worst about someone’s behavior and immediately assuming that they are irresponsible.

By Tim

June 15, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

(sorry for the double post)

By Greg

June 15, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

I’ve gotten so that I rarely read the Shaunti-Diane column any more. They’ve fallen into a regrettable pattern lately that’s rarely broken: a topic is introduced, and one or both of them decide that the whole discussion should be about some other topic. The focus is lost. It’s no wonder that they can’t agree on anything; they usually are talking about different things. The topics are obviously related, but still…focus, people.

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Bruce, Ben may actually have a point, but you are certainly not entitled to join in on the lecture. You have routinely condemned non-Christians and gays to various eternal torments, declared your absolute rightness based on the Bible, etc. I may have a beam in my eye about somethings, but you do too.

By Elizabeth

June 15, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

So let me get this straight…until a few weeks ago, sex offenders were allowed access to Viagra (and have Medicaid pay for it) yet women who might have had LEGITIMATE reasons for needing the “Morning After” pill were being refused and, in some cases, sent away without a referral or even the prescription given them by their doctors. Good to know where women and their rights stand in the eyes of the government.

By SUZAN

June 15, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

Well lets make this clear. I do believe that a woman has a right to birth control pills. I do believe that accidents happen and I do understand the need to handle things like rape. But I also understand that most of these incidents are very marginal compared to the reality of what happens. I do believe that life begins at conception and not at birth. But that is my beliefs. I think that the people that scream the loudest here can not see the truth for fear they may be wrong I was once like you as well. I am no doctor but I have walked down roads that have brought me to this place you know nothing of. This has taught me the truth. And I will side with the pharmacist who choose to stick to thier rights and moral beliefs

By Netbanker

June 15, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

SUZAN…this statement is very telling “because someone chooses to use a morning after pill for unprotected sex does not mean that I have to assist with this if thier mistake is the case.” You are judging the person who had sex without knowing anything about the situation and making an assumption that it was unprotected. How do you know that they weren’t having protected sex and the condom broke? It is not the pharmacists place, even as a person of faith, to make that judgement about another. As a person of faith the judgment is God’s and as a pharmacist you’ve sworn to put the best interests of the patient first. Maybe becoming pregnant is an extreme danger to the patient…the patient is not the egg or the sperm that MIGHT meet up and MIGHT implant in the walls of the uterus. The patient is the person who walked up to the counter with a script in hand.

Something else I’m noting that is that the moral discussion is solely from a Christian perspective which supports your faith. Will you equally support the right of a pharmacist of a faith different than yours who refuses to fill a script for you that would cause no moral dilema for someone of your faith, but will compromise your health?

As for other pharmacies being available or by mail neither of those may be options for someone in a rural area. It is easy to say go elsewhere when most of us here live in a large metropolitan area with plenty of options.

By lozen

June 15, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were both assassinated in the end, Ben as you well know. MLK lived three years longer than MalcolmX and I think if MalcolmX had not died when he did his message would have changed; it was already changing. Martin had a close family life and relative security and comfort as he grew up. MalcolmX wasn’t as fortunate. I understand his anger knowing what his childhood was life and the threat he and his family lived under throughout his childhood, the murder of his father, the mental illness of his mother and break up of his family. He over came tremendous odds to become a great man in my opinion. As far as who is best known and most approved by American culture, that would be MLK. As far as who might have been more successful in changing the culture, we’ll never really know will we? Who knows what Malcolm might have done if he’d lived longer? I admire MLK as much as any human being who has ever lived and I admire his committment to his philosophy. I admire Rosa Parks, MalcolmX, W.E.B. DuBois and many others who had the courage to stand up, see clearly what was going on, and work to right the wrongs of rascism and disenfranchisement.

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

Suzan, if you want to know why I get a little irked from time to time, particularly at conservative religious folks, it’s because of comments like: “I think that the people that scream the loudest here can not see the truth for fear they may be wrong”. You accuse me of not seeing anyone elses view, but what you’re saying here is “It doesn’t matter what you believe, I know I’m right and you’re just scared to admit it”. It doesn’t leave much room for discussion.

I say yet again, as several others have: Where does it end? Where does sticking to your moral beliefs start to be wrong when it conflicts with your real-world responsibilities? Answer the question about the police officer, Suzan - is it OK for a police officer who hates muslims to allow a Muslim to be beaten? He’s only excercising his moral, religious beliefs, after all.

By Ben

June 15, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

Suzan - The problem is not that people don’t see the truth — they just have different versions of the truth. Based on what you believe, life begins at conception. The morning after pill prevents conception. So where’s the moral wrongdoing?

By lozen

June 15, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

Suzan, “it is sad that there are people who profess to be Christians and yet do not know the meaning of the faith to which they lay claim.” Well, mother god why don’t you just tell us the true meaning since you’re in the know? What an ego!

By lozen

June 15, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

Philip, you said it good!

By Ben

June 15, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

Lozen - Considering they are both dead, we can really only jugde them by what they did while still with us. MLK was by far the most affective civil rights leader because of his non-violent stance. He was heard, and people were willing to listen because he discussed the issue and ignored the hate and ignorance projected at him and black people. He was able to make change because people were willing to listen.

Malcolm X, by taking the more violent, eye for an eye stance, was not really heard. His message was clouded by the hate he projected, and that’s what most people remember him for. True, his journey to the Mecca opened his eyes and he was well on the way to choosing his views, which really only proves that he realized that responding to hate with hate was not very productive.

By Ben

June 15, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

changing, not choosing … sorry

By SUZAN

June 15, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

Boy did i get some responses out of yall and you guys are so very angry. first Easton that question is not even relavent to this conversation and it is a question ment to bait rather than debate. Lozen your comments are eaqually angry I do not have the ego but rather the sad expereicne of what some of these drugs can do. Thirdly the morning after pill does not stop conception it ends it read the pharmacology on it. it is not meant as a before pill but an after as ooop already done. It has also been responsible fot the deaths of many young women who have hemorraged after taking this drug and should have never been put into the market to begin with. I lost a friend to this wpnderful drug which you defend. Last I judge no one for how they live cause Im sure ive done worse in my life. But in this second half of my life I am trying to see the truth the hard truth. So I will take what is said and think on it. I do stand by my beliefs though that you should not be able to force someone to go against thier core beliefs and commit to them that which is a sin that is the beauty of a constitutional right

By lozen

June 15, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

Oops! Got carried away there and was not nice to Suzan. Ben’s comment, right above mine, was so much more adult and reasonable. Maybe he’s not taking as much personal offense as I, since he wasn’t told in so many words that his life is so much less important than a clump of cells.

By Netbanker

June 15, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

Thanks everyone.

Ben and Lozen…I’m curious as to your reactions to the the questionable financial goings-on and business relationships at the MLK Center. Do you think this in any way diminishes MLK or his legacy?

By SUZAN

June 15, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Lozen I put a question to you would Ben be any less were he still that clump pf cells that started out so long ago or because he was luckey enought to be born somehow make him more important than being just a clump of cells

just a question please dont take this personally this is just a question of debate

By SUZAN

June 15, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

my point I was just once a clump of cell as were we all what made the difference between our being born verses our being aborted by a drug called ru-24 well we were lucky enough not to be around at the same time as that drug and hopefully not thought of as an accident

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this

Susan, you are very wrong if you think that question is not relevant to this discussion. It speaks directly to the greater issues at hand - when does one’s professional responsibility trump one’s ethical beliefs? We can sit here and dicker all day about pharmacists, but there are many implications for many areas to this debate.

By Ben

June 15, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

Netbanker - I don’t think it diminishes his legacy at all. His legacy is carried on by society and the ability of people to measure a person by his character, and the ability to be colorblind. Not everyone feels that way, but without his sacrifices and contributions to the world, one can only imagine where we would be.

I don’t think any of the questionable activity at the King Center reflects on him at all. It’s unfortunate that his family would engage in anything questionable that would bring scrutiny on his name and legacy. — but sometimes people will be people. Maybe if he would have had the opportunity to raise them and teach them things would be different.

By Zack

June 15, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

People can make childish statements against me all day, but it bothers me when people, like a commenter on here yesterday, say that we need to protect a mother’s right to “choose.” My friend, “choose” is just a more-acceptable term for “murder.” No, this “right” shouldn’t be protected. It needs to be abolished as soon as possible, and don’t tell me it can’t happen. I congratulate any pharmacist who has the passion to stand up and not fill a prescription like this, and to those of you who say such pharmacists are breaking the law, well, so did Rosa Parks when she chose not to sit in the backs of busses. By the left-wing “logic” on this blog, Parks should’ve been jailed for not abiding by the rules.

By SUZAN

June 15, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

just one more comment Lozen. I was not impling that Bens life was less important but rather that all life is important and Ben you me all could have been flushed down to old toilet in this day and time. I do not say his life is less but rather that being born we who have had this previlage should be more protective of those yet to be born but who are already concieved. life is so important

By SUZAN

June 15, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

Eaton that is a question to bait and you know it. If we come to a point where one is beat up by someone for a religous belief then we have better have a revelution. Here is a question would you come to that defenless persons aid or would you just turn your head and not look. Perhaps would you say well accidents happen

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

Susan, RU-486 is not the Morning After Pill. I can find no instances anywhere of a death involving the MAP. The literature clearly points out that it can NOT end a pregnancy where the embryo has implanted. It either prevents or disrupts ovulation, or less frequently prevents implantation. A pregnancy is considered active once implantation occurs.

By Ben

June 15, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

Zack - I have a question! You call it murder, but who is being murdered when the morning after pill is taken. We are talking preconception here. Can someone please tell me life begins?

By Ben

June 15, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

By the way Zack - it was not a law that blacks had to ride in the back of the bus or give their seats to white people. It was an accepted form of racism and segregation in the South.

By Linda

June 15, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Something that keeps coming up over and over again is the assumption that the MAP and abortion benefit women. Early feminists and the medical profession together were the ones who got the first laws against abortion passed. Women WANTED these laws to protect themselves and their babies from those who would coerce them into abortions. Read the book by Dr. Bernard Nathanson who was President of NARAL (and who had performed 25,000 abortions personally before he saw an ultrasound of a baby being aborted and realized he had a responsibility to two— not one- patients)about how NARAL “made up” the number of women who had died from illegal abortions to gain the help of feminists to support legal abortions. Abortion is now a major money-making industry with little regard for the women and babies who are its victims. The drug companies who manufacture the MAP only want to sell chemicals to women with no regard of any short or long term consequences. By the way, women still die from abortions. The abortion industry, doctors and facilities are the least regulated medical facilities in this country. Check out the clinic closed (today’s Drudge Report) in Kansas City where the doctor was eating the fetuses. Investigatos discovered the doctor was storing the fetuses in Styrofoam cups in his refrigerator,microwaving them, and stirring them into his lunch. The method of sterilization there was a dish washer. They found trash everywhere and roaches crawling all over the counters. The toilet was bloody and used as a human waste disposal. I just do not understand why women continue to put their health at risk this way. Where is our self-respect?

By Ben

June 15, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

when life begins? sorry again

By SUZAN

June 15, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

Dear Eaton please see the following: “While not all adverse events are reported, these reports confirm three deaths caused by RU-486, including 18-year-old Holly Patterson, who died after taking the drug in September 2003,�

.com) - The Food and Drug Administration is attaching new health warnings to the abortion-inducing drug RU-486, also known as mifepristone or by its trade name Mifeprex.

One pro-abortion group said it supports the new warning label; but a pro-life group said label changes aren’t enough - the drug should be pulled off the market entirely.

The FDA approved Mifeprex in 2000 for the termination of early pregnancy, which was defined as 49 days or less.

Since then, the FDA and the drug’s maker, Danco Laboratories, have received reports of serious bacterial infection, bleeding, ectopic pregnancies, and even death in several cases - and the new warning label will mention those complications.

The label also will inform health care providers that serious bacterial infection and sepsis may occur without the usual signs of infection, such as fever and tenderness. The FDA also said health care providers should be aware that prolonged, heavy bleeding may warrant surgery.

The label also warns health care providers to watch for patients with undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies (tubal pregancies), a condition that may be overlooked by physical examination and ultrasound.

Women taking the drug should immediately report fever, abdominal pain, and heavy bleeding, the new label will say.

The FDA said the revised labeling “will provide physicians and patients with important information so that they can respond and possibly prevent rare but serious complications that may occur with any abortion.”

The FDA said it will continue to monitor the usage of Mifeprex-“and may take further action.”

‘Warnings not enough’

Concerned Women for America, a conservative public policy group, notes that several women have died after taking RU-486, and the FDA’s response is simply to change the drug’s label.

“This is a dangerous drug that deserves to be pulled off the market immediately,” said Wendy Wright, CWA’s senior policy director. “Not only is the drug unsafe, but abortionists refuse to follow the FDA’s current guidelines — even after Holly Patterson’s tragic death.” Wright added.

Patterson, 18, died in September 2003 after taking RU-486 at home.

“Why would anyone think that by the FDA changing words on a label, abortionists will suddenly put women’s health and lives above their own convenience and profits? How many more women must die before the FDA acknowledges the perilous realities of this drug and removes it from the market?” asked Wright.

After Patterson’s death, Concerned Women for America said it filed extensive evidence with the FDA showing that the drug was not adequately tested; that the trials under-reported serious complications; and that abortionists were not following the FDA’s requirements in administering it.

CWA said the FDA did not respond to its “citizen petition.”

“When women’s lives are at stake, this is unacceptable,” Wright said. “While the label changes implicitly admit the dangerous nature of the drug, trusting abortionists to follow the warnings is a futile effort and does nothing to make the drug itself safe.”

Drug-induced abortions ‘safe and effective’

Planned Parenthood said it supports the updated mifepristone labeling - “because it is based on the best scientific information available.”

Dr. Vanessa Cullins, vice president for medical affairs at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a press release, “At Planned Parenthood, our number one priority is the health and safety of our patients and we support responsible safeguards for women’s health.”

Cullins insisted that abortions produced by RU-486 are “extremely safe and effective,” and that the medication was approved by the FDA after a “rigorous scientific screening process.”

“More than a million women worldwide have used medication abortion safely,” Cullins said. “Since it was approved by the FDA in September. 2001, women and doctors nationwide report high levels of success and satisfaction with this early abortion option.”

She added that Planned Parenthood’s abortion clients receive “extensive education and counseling on what to expect and whom to call with any concerns, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

See Earlier Stories: Congressmen Seek Suspension of Abortion Drug (7 Nov. 2003) Pro-Lifers Criticize FDA for Poor Monitoring of RU-486 (26 Sept. 2003)

By SUZAN

June 15, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

Eaton yet more:

Revealed: two British women die after taking controversial new abortion pill By Michael Day and Susan Bisset (Filed: 18/01/2004)

Two British women have died after taking the controversial abortion pill RU-486, the Government has admitted.

Melanie Johnson, the public health minister, disclosed last week that since 1991, when the drug became available in Britain, the Committee on Safety of Medicines had received two reports of “suspected fatal reactions in association with the use of Mifegyne [RU-486]”. She was replying to a parliamentary question by the Labour MP Jim Dobbin, the chairman of the Parliamentary all-party Pro-Life group.

Miss Johnson said: “The reporting of a suspected adverse drug reaction does not necessarily mean that the drug was responsible. Many factors, such as the medical condition that is being treated, other pre-existing illnesses or other medications might have contributed.”

Pro-life campaigners said last night that the disclosure highlighted the danger of using the abortion pill and accused ministers of concealing the deaths. Jack Scarisbrick, the national chairman of the anti-abortion group Life, said: “I hope this serves as a warning to women on just how dangerous these powerful drugs are. Why haven’t we been told of this before, though? This is clearly another cover-up.”

The disclosure of the deaths of two British women follows the announcement in the United States in September of what was believed to be the fifth death linked to RU-486 since its introduction in 1988.

Holly Patterson, 18, from California, died from septic shock, a week after taking RU-486 to abort her unborn baby. The other four deaths, caused by bleeding or infection believed to be linked to RU-486, occurred in France and the United States.

Self-abortion kills woman February 25, 2005

A 23-year-old woman from Talisay City died in an apparent unsuccessful attempt to abort the child she had been carrying in her womb by herself.

The woman, Claudeth Aviles, was found by relatives in a pool of blood in her own home in barangay Lagtang , a fetus still lodged in her sex organ.

Police said Aviles separated from her husband two years ago but got pregnant recently by another man, a pregnancy she apparently wanted terminated.

Talisay City police chief Pablo Florante Lamosao said the relatives tried to bring Aviles to the Talisay City District Hospital but she apparently had lost too much blood and was already dead by the time she arrived.

Lamosao said the doctor at the hospital who attended to Aviles said she used a tablet called Cytotec to effect the abortion. An undisolved portion of the tablet was found inside her v**** opening, near where the fetus had lodged.

Searle, the manufacturer of the drug, has warned pregnant women against using Cytotec ( Misoprostol ) because it can cause abortion, premature birth or birth defects.

Dr. Rene Josef Bullecer, chairman of Human Life International, a pro-life advocacy group, said abortion has become prevalent in the country with up to 200,000 cases reported each year.

Of this number, Bullecer said 98 percent are from chemical abortion or the use of drugs, one of the most common of which is Cytotec which, over the past three years, have often been smuggled from India.

Cytotec is used to prevent stomach ulcers in people who are taking medication for rheumatism or arthritis and can only be bought with a physician’s prescription.

Bullecer said that when used in abortion, the drug can cause profuse bleeding in the woman.

Bullecer said the drug normally costs around P50 with a prescription but in the black market, specifically drugstores not run by pharmacists or those that dispense with medication even without prescription, a single pill can cost around P300.

He said the Bureau of Food and Drugs and the Department of Health have probably done little to monitor the problem because little or no complaints ever reach them.

He said aside from Cytotec, there are also other abortificients being widely used by women to abort unwanted pregnancies such as depo-Provera.

But he warned that distinctions should be made between abortificients and contraceptives, which merely prevent pregnancies.

Bullecer warned that even the DOH is passing off some drugs as contraceptives when they are not.

“ You could ask any physician and he’d tell you these are not contraceptives, “ said Bullecer. - Garry Lao, Liv Campo and Jasmine Uy

WANT MORE EATON IT’S OUT THERE

http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm

FDA To Announce Important Labeling Changes for Mifepristone The Food and Drug Administration will announce today important new safety changes to the Danco Laboratories, LLC’s labeling of mifepristone (trade name Mifeprex, also known as RU-486). Mifeprex was approved in 2000 for the termination of early pregnancy, defined as 49 days or less. FDA and Danco Laboratories have received reports of serious bacterial infection, bleeding, ectopic pregnancies that have ruptured, and death, including another death from sepsis that was recently reported to FDA. These reports have led to the revision of the black box labeling.

The new warnings to health care providers and consumers include changes to the existing black box on the product to add new information on the risk of serious bacterial infections, sepsis, and bleeding and death that may occur following any termination of pregnancy, including use of Mifeprex. While these risks are rare, the new labeling and Medication Guide will provide the latest available information to all.

The new information reminds health care providers that serious bacterial infection and sepsis may occur without the usual signs of infection, such as fever and tenderness on examination. Health care providers should be aware that prolonged, heavy bleeding may warrant surgical interventions. The label also warns that health care providers should be vigilant for patients with undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies (tubal pregancies) as this condition may be missed by physicial examination and ultrasound. Some of the symptoms of an ectopic pregnancy may mimic the expected symptoms of a medical termination of pregnancy. Mifepristone is not effective for termination of these pregnancies.

For consumers, the Medication Guide states they should contact their health care provider right away for fever, abdominal pain, and heavy bleeding. Also, consumers are advised to take their Medication Guide to the emergency room or any health care provider they visit for problems. This allows health care providers to understand that the patient is undergoing a termination of pregnancy, and assess risks associated with that condition.

The revised labeling will provide physicians and patients with important information so that they can respond and possibly prevent rare but serious complications that may occur with any abortion. FDA will continue to monitor the usage of Mifeprex and may take further action.

More Information

By Netbanker

June 15, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

Zack…I’m not certain anyone is saying that the pharmacist is breaking the law. What I see you doing is focusing solely on the issue of abortion rather than considering that there are broader implications. The question posed is “Should pharmacists be forced to fill a prescription that violates their personal beliefs?” Shaunti went solely down the BC/abortion route, but that only addresses one class of meds rather than the question. I posed the following question to Suzan and would be interested in your response.

Will you equally support the right of a pharmacist of a faith different than yours who refuses to fill a script for you that would cause no moral dilema for someone of your faith, but will compromise your health?

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

The Drudge Report is hardly a bastion of journalistic integrity, nor do I think that, even if the gothic story you have shared with us is accurate, that it is in any way indicative of the industry as a whole.

Beyond that, I find your logic that anti-abortion laws were created by women to protect themselves…unfathomable. You honestly believe that laws that prevent a woman from making medical decisions on her own behalf protect her? From…? Are there laws that allow men to force women to have abortions? Hardly.

By Amanda

June 15, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

I don’t think anyone was denying that deaths have been contributed to RU-486, but the point many have tried to make, Suzan, is that the Morning-After Pill (Preven) is not the same as RU-486 and has not been a factor in any deaths to this point. Please try to keep the 2 medications separated. People may listen a little more if you do, but they seem to be shutting you out since you have not made the distinction between the Morning-After pill (Preven, etc.) and the Abortion pill (RU-486).

Have a lovely day!

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Suzan…the morning after pill is NOT RU-486! You’re talking about something else entirely. RU-486 is not distributed by pharmacists, but administered by a doctor. Please, get your facts straight, and please don’t cut and paste long articles.

By SUZAN

June 15, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

want more information on the dangers of this drug that women dont know about yes I support the right of the pharmacist not to rx is drug both ethically and morally

By Ken

June 15, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

The anger on this board amazes me. Everyone spewing forth their venom essentially wants the same thing… For each person in this great country to have their moral values respected.

Professionals of every kind, unless paid directly by the government, have the right to conduct business in the way they see fit. Lawyers, doctors, factory workers and everyone in between have that freedom. Employers can fire workers for insubordination. Workers can leave companies they find using immoral practices. Consumers can choose not to use a particular vendor if their values are not acceptable. That is America. Get used to it.

I would propose that if a pharmacist at Eckerd or some other large pharmacy refuses to fill a prescription the person refused should take it up with Eckerd. Get the person fired. Get your prescription filled. If Eckerd doesn’t respond in a satisfactory manner, go some other place to get your prescription filled and tell your friends to do the same.

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Ken, I disagree that it’s as simple as you put it. Sometimes prescriptions need to be filled in haste, and the patient doesn’t have the leisure to find another doctor. Sometimes there isn’t another pharmacy handy, as in rural areas.

Doesn’t a pharmacist have an ethical responsibility to his client? Pharmacists are figures of trust for many people. I just don’t believe they have the right to violate that trust on a whim.

Suzan, if you don’t want to look at the deeper issues, no one is forcing you.

By Renee

June 15, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

Birth-control pills perform differently. Some pills stop ovulation and others prevent the egg from being planted in the uterus after conception. I believe life begins at conception. Because of my belief, when I was younger and on the pill, I only took the type of pill that stopped ovulation and NEVER the ones (at least not that I know of) that at conception, prevented the egg from being planted in the uterus.

That being said, my opinion is that pharmacist should have the right to refuse to fill the prescriptions discussed above. However, if I owned a grocery store or a drug store, I feel the pharmacist should follow the guidelines I set forth in my store. So, if a pharmacist feels that strongly about the issue, they should work where their moral beliefs are not in conflict with the company they work for.

By Ben

June 15, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

How many pharmacists have refused to dispense aspirin or pull it from the shelves?

By JJ

June 15, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

Okay Zack & Suzan, does the Hindu pharmacist have the right not dispense Bovine insulin to his diabetic client? and does he have the right to keep the presciption, because if someone else dispense it, it might hurt the cow?

By Netbanker

June 15, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Suzan… If the patient is given all the disclosures and information isn’t the choice to swallow the pill utlimately their decision to make? Why shouldn’t it be the woman’s choice to weigh the risks and make her own decision? You believe it would be wrong, but why should your belief be used to stop someone else who is willing to take risks for themself based on an informed decision?

By SUZAN

June 15, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

Eaton you are truly a very nasty person indeed to make a comment on the death of a friend. want an angry soul you must have. I feel more pity for you than anger and hope that you will one day find the help you need to step out of this most sad place your in as for the new drug of which amanda commented I am afraid I know nothing of it. but from what I read it is considered much safer than ru-486 and seems to do per the scientic data that whic she states. that said i leave you guys with this one today by the way Lozen I never heard back as to weather you thought Ben was nay more or any less important now than as a clump of cells

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

Um, Suzan, I didn’t say a single, solitary thing about the death of your friend.

By Bruce

June 15, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Just got back from lunch and read where Eaton has kicked me off the blog. I guess the truth hurts….. But Eaton you haven’t taken my keyboard yet HA!

Someone said something about those living in rural Georgia not having access to other drug stores. I live in rural Georgia and every town within a 50 mile radius of my home has at least two or more drug stores. Although there is only one in my home town the furtherest one would have to travel to get to another drug store is 10 miles. If a person is so sick they cannot drive 10 miles the doctor would not have let them leave the office but taken them to the hospital.

Also, I feel the questions being asked about Police and Firefighters are comparing apples to oranges. These folks are paid with tax dollars, pharmicist are not.

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Gee Bruce, I didn’t kick you off - I just said that you had no right to criticize me personally, as you have are least as bad as you say I am.

By JJ

June 15, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

Thank you Bruce, okay the fire fighter & police compared to the pharmacist are apples and oranges… I’ll accept that. How about the Hindu pharmacist and bovine insulin? Cows are sacred in their moral beliefs………..

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Or, JJ, how about doctor’s refusing to treat certain patients - AIDS patients, for example.

By kimberly

June 15, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Linda, may I have some of what you’re smoking? Just a lil’ bud? Seriously. Is there a local dealer in your neighborhood, did you smuggle it in, or did you grow it yourself? I would love to spend a couple of hours as completely divorced from reality as you are… Is it wonderful? Seriously. Reality is painful. I’m not joking.

By Jack

June 15, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Zack is a better person than Eaton or Tim. God help them both. They are going to end up growning old alone.

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

And now we know what kind of person you are, Jack.

By Tim

June 15, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Jackie… funny… why don’t you tell that to the guy I go home to every night… no clue what I ever did to you… but dude get a life… and stop obsessing about me… starting to get creepy… you are waaaaaay too old for me :)

By JJ

June 15, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

I wouldn’t support a physcian that discriminated their services based on a disease that a client has. But I do believe if a client had AIDS, they should inform the physican. Physican are to use universal precautions, but informing your MD about any condition is important to establish your treatment.

By Tim

June 15, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

Eaton… if we are alone… at least we will have each other :) lol

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

Lol Tim :-)

It is kind of creepy the way he pops on once or twice a day to make a snide comment about you, isn’t it? I’m sticking to my conclusion that he’s a frustrated closet-case resentful that he’s been shoved in his whole miserable life. His prophecies of loneliness are nothing but projection.

By Bruce

June 15, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this

JJ

I guess I would have to find another drug store to do business with. I would be scared to do business with that pharmicist again even if I did force him/her to fill that scrip. Simply becuase the next scrip I had filled may not be all that helpful and they could say opps I made a mistake. But I would still be sick or worse. Most common folk do not know if the drug the pharmicist give them are the right drug or not. We trust them to assist the doctors to take care of us when we are sick. If that trust is broken I would certainly find someone else.

By Tim

June 15, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

Eaton… I wouldn’t be surprised if you were right on with your assessment of Jack

By Tony

June 15, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

You have a choice to remain celibate. You have a choice to be on birth control pills. Tie your tubes. Have a hysterectomy. Ensure the male wears a condom or had a vasectomy. Female condoms, diaphragm, sponges, or cervical caps. Spermicides which come in many forms—foams, jellies, gels, and suppositories. Norplant, a contraceptive implant. Intrauterine Devices. Nuva rings . Patches etc. etc.

If all these choices are ignored and you still have unprotected sex you have a choice to go to a doctor and get a prescription for a MA pill. Now most doctors have a waiting period, but by some small miracle, you get in to see your doctor before 72 hours have elapsed you can get a prescription for the MA Pill. Now doctors visit are expensive and you still have to pay for the prescription. Most any pharmacy in the USA will fill your prescription. You can also choose to go online and without a doctor, order the MA Pill and have it delivered next day.

You can choose to ignore the fact that you had unprotect sex, might become pregnant, and you if you do, you can choose to abort.

In some states You can choose to force a pharmacist’s to fill prescriptions contrary to their belief and by doing so your violating their autonomy, integrity and basic human rights.

Or you can choose to go to another pharmacist. Which road will you choose?

By JJ

June 15, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Bruce, that isn’t really answering the question, is it? Does he have the right to not fill the prescription based on his moral beliefs. Not what you would do it those were his moral beliefs………but nice side step.

By Netbanker

June 15, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Jack…I’ve posed this question to both Zack and Suzan and I’ll throw it your way in hopes of a response.

Will you equally support the right of a pharmacist of a faith different than yours who refuses to fill a prescription for you that would cause no moral dilemma for someone of your faith, but will compromise your health?

By Bruce

June 15, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

Let me get this straight. You are telling me that I cannot criticize you but yet you have criticized everyone on this blog since you got here with no regard to rather it is personal or not. Is that correct? Man that hurts.

By Netbanker

June 15, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

Tony…I’ll pose my question to you also…

Will you equally support the right of a pharmacist of a faith different than yours who refuses to fill a script for you that would cause no moral dilemma for someone of your faith, but will compromise your health?

By Bruce

June 15, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Well JJ…. it was not my attepmt to step to the side so I will spell it out for you. If the pharmicist were to NOT fill my prescription because of his/her moral beliefs I would GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. Simply because I would not want him to force him/her to do anything against thier beliefs. If he/she wanted to talk about the subject I would listen, try to understand, and hope they would do so in turn. However, if they did not what to talk about it or still refused I would simply go somewhere else.

Like I said on Monday I am not sure how I feel on the subject and was hoping to learn something this week but so far I am still on the fence. How’s that?

By Linda

June 15, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

I certainly would not ask you to trust Drudge about the, as you say, “gothic” abortion clinic story. Ask Detective William Howard of the Kansas City Police Department who investigated along with the district attorney and three state agencies. Maybe ask the State Board of Healing arts which voted unanimously to revoke the doctor’s license. Unfortunately, they didn’t do it before he ate some of his “patients’” babies.

Also check the early history of the anti-abortion movement about who lobbied to get the laws passed against the death dealing procedures. Add Dr. Nathanson’s book since he, as President of NARAL at the time, was at the forefront of getting abortion legalized. Fact is fact. You can reject it and create some sort of revisionist history, but the truth remains.

It is easy to name call and ridicule someone who disagrees with you. That’s nothing new. I have been teaching teen-agers for years. I hear it all the time. But people’s opinions are changed by persuasive arguments, not by belittling those who disagree with you.

But perhaps the saddest thing about abortion is not the trauma to a woman’s body. The saddest part is the emotional consequences. I know, I see it everyday from young women who have been suckered into subjecting themselves to that horrible procedure and paid some doctor to do it. If Planned Parenthood really cares about its “clients,” let them do it for free. You all are always telling anti-abortion people to “support the mother and the baby,” (and that is exactly what they are doing in women’s centers all over this country—at no cost), but you never tell the robber barons who make millions this way, to do it for free.

By Tony

June 15, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, Be specific and I’ll do my best to answer honestly.

By JJ

June 15, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

Thank you Bruce, that is an answer. I appreciate it. Sounds like you do support the pharmacist’s rights to refuse based on their moral code (even though you say you are on the fence.) And if you support all pharmacists rights for all possible prescriptions, then I don’t have issue with that statement. As long as all pharmacist have the same rights. I personally disagree, and feel they should feel the prescriptions. But that is just my opinion.

By JJ

June 15, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

not feel but fill……….sorry

By Whiley

June 15, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Know what the saddest thing about abortion is? Is that there are some out there that want to take that option away from women, & we’d all be forced to give birth against our will. Or die having an “illegal” abortion (unless you have money) And today we have pharmacists who won’t give out prescriptions to women so we can AVOID having an abortion.

Why should we feel guilty for making the choice of using birth control or getting an abortion? We’re bad because we didn’t want to be incubators for sperm? We’re bad because we didn’t put our lives on hold or sacrifice our education or careers ? We’re bad if we didn’t want to risk our health or risk becoming poor? We’re just bad because we didn’t want to be baby-factories? The guilt, shame, and remorse that some women feel after getting an abortion, comes from all of society’s obsessive “cult of prego-natalism” propaganda bulls!@#!@, that we have been fed since we were little girls. Women are “supposed” to want to have babies, that’s why we’re even here on earth. What a crock of !@#!@!

By Bruce

June 15, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Thanks for pointing that out JJ. I guess you are right I do support thier rights. Finally someone that is willing to agree to disagree and I learned something in the process. I appreciate you too.

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

No Bruce, I’m saying that if YOU criticize anyone for being judgemental and insulting, you are a hypocrite.

By Netbanker

June 15, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

Tony…the question is

Will you support the right of a pharmacist of a faith different than yours who refuses to fill your prescription on moral grounds when there would be no moral dilemma for someone of your faith?

By kimberly

June 15, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

Linda, women who regret their decision to abort often seek counseling to deal with their emotional trauma. Some of these women seek to make the choice illegal. Therefore, it’s easy to see how you would think this traumatizes women. However, the women you’re NOT hearing from are the women who do NOT regret their decision, and who aren’t traumatized. They choose to move forward from a bad situation, and don’t need to preach about the horror in order to lessen their guilt. Based on the women I know, I’d say most women are grateful they were able to move on from the bad situation and leave the what-ifs and might-have-beens to those for whom wailing and gnashing of teeth define their sense of purpose.

By JJ

June 15, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

Well said Kimberly.

By Bruce

June 15, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black.

By kimberly

June 15, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Thanks JJ.. Further, as a woman, I deeply and sincerely regret my decision to marry an abusive, alcoholic redneck. I was traumatized by this situation, and required a laywer and significant amounts of therapy to recover my lost self-esteem. Shall we pass a law banning marriage?

By Whiley

June 15, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

I’m assuming that if one applies to be a pharmacist, the main job description is FILL PRESCRIPTIONS. Not, fill most prescriptions, depending on your mood.

If you want special rights to pick & choose which prescriptions you fill, go work at a pharmacy at A CHURCH. Or open your own business, just post signs that let the public know you are a sexist-cave dwelling-bible thumping-pig.

By charley

June 15, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Listen, I am against “abortion” on a whole. BUT, for a pharmasist to deny a woman a Doctor prescribed drug, to me, is not only unethical, but should be unlawful. Who is to say what that drug is intended for? What ever happened to Doctor/patient confidentialy? What if that pharmasist’s wife went to the emergency room having a heart attack, but the Doctor didn’t help her because she was over 30 and decided she had lived long enough anyway? I know that is farfetched, but hey, same thing. Come on people, wake the hell up. Either do your job, or get in a different profession.

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

Linda, if you are a teacher, surely you realize the logical fallacy involved in assuming that because there is one insane doctor performing abortions in one filthy clinic that all doctors and clinics are insane and filthy.

I did do a little looking on your history, by the way, and find that in the late 19th century, it was male doctors and the AMA who lobbied against abortions. Yes, there were several anti-feminist women’s groups in the 60s who fought to keep abortions legal, but I did not find any reference to hordes of women begging to have abortions made illegal.

I pose this question for you, Linda: Against what would these hypothetical women want to be protected? The need for protection suggests that they were being forced into abortions. Who was doing so? And, even if that WERE the case then, more than 100 years have passed. The situation is quite different, and clearly the majority wishes to have abortion legalized.

I’m sure you are ALSO aware of the fallacy involved in extrapolating opinions of a larger group based on the actions of a smaller. Because a small group of women protest - whatever - does not mean that all women opose that same thing. To be more specific - just because a group opposing abortion is composed primarily of women, it does not logically follow that all women oppose abortion.

By Netbanker

June 15, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

Eaton…I believe you are in a hole and still digging in a possible attempt to get out. I understand where you are… I have personally experienced every one of those things I wrote about earlier and more like burying a friend while a Fred Phelps-like group demonstrated outside the church and followed us to the cemetary. I still get mad (you can’t even begin to imagine), but what I’ve come to realize is that getting mad isn’t doing anyone any good unless that anger becomes a motivating force to work for change. Even then, we must pick our battles and use our energy wisely. Don’t battle people here who can’t really affect. Do battle with those who make the laws, or those who set the policies in your workplace, or volunteer to help those more directly injured by this hate.

You will not likely change the opinion of Zack, or Jack, or Boscoe or any of their like mind, but you do allow them a smug sense of satisfaction at knowing they’ve riled you up and they take that sense and use it as false proof that they are right. Don’t give them that. As I stated in that earlier post after a while it becomes damn near impossible to continue to take the high road, but would Ghandi have been successful had he not stuck to that road? This will be harder than most things you’ve ever done, but it makes you stronger and shows that you are the better person.

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Well Bruce, I comfort myself with the knowledge that I have never condemened anyone to Hell, nor do I hate entire classes of people because God tells me to. You can’t make the same claim.

By mel

June 15, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

I just saw an interesting interview on Foxnews. There is a home builder who refuses to allow sex offenders to move into his developments. All potential buyers must pass a background check. Now THAT I can get behind.

By Bruce

June 15, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Netbanker,

You are right, I can’t image the anger you felt. I can’t image what those folks were thinking they would accomplish by doing such a disrespectful thing. That was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Eaton, The only person I could ever condemn to hell would be me. But as a Christain you already know that.

By Ken

June 15, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Just b/c a doctor writes a prescription for you doesn’t mean his/her opinion is the end all be all. That is why pharmacists are much more than folks who fill pill bottles.

They aren’t pez dispensers placed here to give us whatever our doctors prescribe, whenever they prescribe them. If so, it wouldn’t be so doggone difficult to become a pharmacist.

If that was the way things were supposed to work, why not just have the doctor sell you your meds right there at the office. Save time and overhead. It would just leave the patient up to the whims of the doctor, and when you’re dealing with meds, sometimes very powerful ones, maybe another check is appropriate for patient safety.

By Netbanker

June 15, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

Ken that’s a very valid position that I doubt any here disagree with. The issue isn’t patient safety, but a pharmacist who injects their personal, moral agenda into your health care.

By Linda

June 15, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, perhaps we just know different women. Some of those I know were at the “forefront” of the women’s liberation movement. They were the first members of the National Organization for Women” and “proud” to be the among the first of those who had “legalized” abortion—just doing away with the “clump” of cells that would keep them from career advancement in those newly opened fields, etc. But, Opps, science brought us the ultrasound machine and they found out they had been lied to about that inconvenient clump of cells by folks that just wanted their money or by men who left quickly after the little problem was out of the way. And even the job wasn’t all that great and fulfilling, office politics and technological advances being what they are. And guess what? Many of them are now working in crisis pregnancy centers, tyring to help women make better choices than they did—even telling young women the truth— that there is no easy fix or “free lunch.” Even without an unexpected pregnancy, there are twenty-six major identified sexually transmitted diseases out there to take their fertility, their health and their lives. As I said before, we women were the victims of lies from the beginning. Our sisters who fought to make abortion illegal from the beginning were wiser than we. Read somemore history. It was the “earliest” feminists who fought to make abortion illegal. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was not a feminist. She was a eugenist who wanted black babies and the children of immigrants dead.

By DeltaX

June 15, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Of course cells are “alive,” but is that what people mean by life? Or are they referring to a SOUL? Must be a soul, because the remnants of flesh rotting on my keys from typing would be quite the dilemma.

So; Shouldn’t one have to show there is proof of a soul - at least in an adult - before trying to make the claim that one is snuffing it out?

The argument should not be when does this soul take shape, but if it exists at all. Any questions that skip this would be pure folly.

Have fun.

By Tony

June 15, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, Without details I can not answer your question.

Let me say this. Most people posting are not being realistic.

Where talking about a morning after pill. The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three possible ways in which it can work (as does the regular birth control pill):

Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released; (Birth Control Pill)

The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation;

or

It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first and second actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the human being created will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus.

In other words, if the third action occurs, her body rejects the living human embryo, and the child will die.

This result is a chemical abortion. (Abortion is an act of direct killing that takes the life of a living preborn human being�a life that begins at fertilization.)

That’s the issue. Twist it, spin it, claim peoples lives will be at stake. Claim AIDS patients and terminally ill patients will be denied their medications. It’s all hog wash.

The fact is some men and women in the pharmaceutical industry stand by their integrity and basic human rights and we have no right demanding otherwise!

By Netbanker

June 15, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Off topice, but why is it that Shaunti and Diane don’t ever hop in these forums to participate if only on a limited time basis like others that do the ‘chat live with from x-y time’?

By DeltaX

June 15, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

More crap to filter if you really want to try to use the grey stuff:

How the “Its my body clause” does not really mean anything.

I have a body too, and it is illegal for me to commit suicide or self mutilate. So, my body/my rights has already failed on a non-gender test.

By Ken

June 15, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Netbanker…

Unfortunately, I believe most folks in this discussion disagree with that idea and see pharacists as little more than pez dispensers. Too many folks write that it’s their job to fill prescriptions and the fact is, their job consists of much, MUCH more.

However, if folks are willing to accept the fact that pharmacists have valid opinions then it is safe to assume that pharmacists may disagree with the patients’ doctors. The disagreement could be for a variety of reasons and any of those reasons would be classified as personal beliefs, b/c if the doctor prescribes the medication, the doctor believes it is fine and contradicts the pharmacist.

The real argument is defining “personal beliefs.” Is it religious dogma? Is it different interpretation of scientific results? Is it personal experience? Does it matter? The outcome is the same regardless of the definition.

If disagreement occurs, regardless of reason, the patient must go to another pharmacist to get their prescription.

So the answer to the original question of whether pharmacists should be forced to fill prescriptions if it violates the personal beliefs, to me is a resounding NO! Of course, this assumes you view pharmacists as more than a candy machine.

By Eaton

June 15, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Ken, I don’t see pharmacists as pez dispensers, but I question your assertion that your responsibility is to make a secondary judgement about a patient’s health. Isn’t the responsibility of the pharmacist to warn patients about side effects, and to determine the interaction of a perscribed drug with other drugs? I’ve never heard anyone suggest that a pharmacist should second-guess a doctor on grounds other than these.

By Boni

June 15, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

I just wanted to add my two cents. If you cannot perform your job then you should be fired. For example, would a person of the Hindu faith work in a beef packing plant? You choose your profession. If I choose not to do my job then I am fired. Period. I would also like to add that a pharmacy exsists primarily to make money. If the pharmacist turns women away from the store then sales go down across the board. If Walgreens refuses my prescription, I would take all of my drugstore dollars elsewhere. In other words, if I can’t pick up a prescription I would also not shop there for sunscreen, tylenol, etc… As the business owner, would you employ someone who cannot do the job they are being paid for? I know it sounds simple and crass to speak of money but businesses are in business to make money. If they do not then they eventually close.

By Whiley

June 15, 2005 05:07 PM | Link to this

The ignorance concerning women, birth control, religion & the history of abortion here is shocking. It’s a miracle women have any rights at all considering the stupid crap I’ve read this week. I thank every feminist out there from the bottom of my soul & beg they never stop fighting against the IDIOTS out there.

By lozen

June 15, 2005 05:13 PM | Link to this

Linda, I have to say it again. You are just full of all kinds of sh##! No matter how much you try to twist feminist history to fit your picture of how things should be you are simply full of sh##! I have researched Margaret Sanger and she was a woman who watched her mother die after 18 pregnancies and 11 live births. She was a nurse who saw many women sick and unable to care for the many children they already had and pregnant with another one. If you think life begins at conception please don’t ever have an abortion. That is your choice; noone is trying to force you or anyone else to have an abortion. I’ve volunteered in an abortion clinic and it’s not a pretty picture any more than a hospital emergency room (where I also worked) is. The battlefield is not a pretty picture. But every woman has to be able to make her own decision. Motherhood by choice and NOT by force. NO woman should ever be forced to continue a pregnancy she does not want. NO woman should ever be forced to have an abortion she does not want. Each individual woman has her beliefs and her needs and her wants and her life and it has to be HER choice.

By A Real Man

June 15, 2005 05:18 PM | Link to this

Missed you guys! Women are stupid and must be protected from themselves. This is why all of this is going on.

Ownership of their reproductive health?? BS, Men have the say so over women’s bodies and always will. Men make the laws. Men run the country. Men RULE THE WORLD. Women are still PROPERTY and always will be. Why does the father still give away his daughter at the alter?

The only reason abortion is still around is some men want it so they don’t have to deal with all of these children. If the majority of men wanted abortion illegal or BC abolished, it would be so.

Husbands should choose which scripts women are allowed to have filled and which they can not have. Women should have no part in the process from the time they walk into the dr office and after they leave the dr office. In fact, they should sit there with their mouths shut, like my wife does, while I (the man, the one with more intelligence) speak to the MALE dr.

Most of women’s ailments are “in thier head” anyway.

By Ben

June 16, 2005 07:39 AM | Link to this

I refer, again, to numbers 3 and 4.

III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.

A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.

IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.

A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act with conviction of conscience. A pharmacist avoids discriminatory practices, behavior or work conditions that impair professional judgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the best interests of patients.

By DeltaX

June 16, 2005 08:30 AM | Link to this

(I understand this is the normal diviation, but it persist w/o help - so dive in; or ignore) Can one of the people who are using the arguement “life begins at conception” tell me what exactly they mean by that? The sperm and egg are alive before ever meeting each other. So, what are you trying to refer to and how does it make any sence.

Maybe you want to bite Linda?

By Ben

June 16, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this

That’s a damn good question Delta. I was wondering the same thing.

By Brian Curtis

June 16, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this

Quote from Tony: “The fact is some men and women in the pharmaceutical industry stand by their integrity and basic human rights and we have no right demanding otherwise!”

Actually, we do. Because they’re not just holding these views as private citizens. They’re doing a JOB, that we pay them for. And if they have moral objections to it, we have the right—in fact, the obligation—to get them fired and replaced with someone who WILL do what they’re paid for.

These fine, upstanding, moral people you speak of are interfering in a private medical matter between a woman and her doctor, assuming their own personal judgment—and ignorance of the facts—is more important than her health and well-being. That doesn’t sound much like a pharmacist to me.

By Linda

June 16, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this

Hi Whiley and Lozen, You don’t have to apologize for the profanity. if I had a quarter for every tidbit of profanity left by my teen-age students on desks, books, walls, and notes I would be a rich woman today. It’s so common now the shock value is pretty much gone.

But back to the discussion. Here is what the feminist foremothers had to say about abortion and women’s rights. SUSAN B. ANTHONY in THE REVOLUTION who referred to abortion as “child murder” in this publication (4(1): 4 July 8, 1869. “We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the rot of evil…It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed.” 4(1):4 July 8, 1869. Anthony also wrote about abortion in THE REVOLUTION 4 (1):4 July 8, 1869, “Guilty? Yes. no matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. it will burden her consience in life, it will burden her soul in death.”

ELIZABETH CADY STANTON in THE REVOLUTION 1(5):1, February 5, 1868 called abortion “infanticide.” In a letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16th, 1873, recorded in Howe’s diary at Harvard University Library Stanton wrote, “When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.” In THE REVOLUTION Stanton wrote, “There must ve a rememdy even for such a crying evil as this.” 1 (10):146-7 March 12, 1868.

VIRGINIA WOODHULL (first female presidential candidate and a strong opponent of abortion) wrote “The rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain a foetus.” WOODHULL’s and CLAFFIN’S WEEKLY 2(6):4 December 24, 1870. She also wrote “Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished for child NOR THINK OF MURDERING ONE BEFORE BIRTH.” WHEELING, WEST VIRGINIA EVENING STANDAND, November 17, 1875.

Here is what ALICE PAUL, author of the ERA and who opposed the later trend of linking the ERA with abortion.(1923) “Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.”

I have a lot more from the early feminists if you are interested.

As to the beginning of human life. That is a biological question, not a political one. Note when conception occurs she or he immediately goes looking for sustenance. That’s what the MAP prevents happening and she or he starves to death.

By DeltaX

June 16, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this

Linda, Please re-read my question and try to answer.

Biologically, all parties involved are “alive” before they interact -so no, it is not a bio question.

As for your non-answer. Looking for sustenence? I believe he/she(sperm+egg) is dependant on food from the mother, as does is egg before they meet, and parallel to that - the sperm is dependant on the father.

Please try to answer, seeing as whole points are baised on this.

By Ken

June 16, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this

DeltaX…

I’ll bite, but Linda would probably give a more passionate answer. To be quite honest, I’m not too sure what the confusion actually is…

In and of themselves, the sperm and the egg are just pieces to the puzzle. They are two halves of the whole. Everyone knows this…

Well, once those two meet (a.k.a. CONCEPTION), the essential building blocks for human life are in place and the baby begins it’s growth. A baby’s life begins when the two meet, pretty simple…

Read any book about stages of baby development and get one with pictures to really hammer the point home. The DNA for the baby is present at conception. The body begins to take shape in just a couple of weeks and by five-seven weeks you can see (on an ultra sound) and possibly hear a heart beating. If anyone doesn’t think that is a human life, then they have never been given the privilege of being or expecting to be a parent.

By Rebecca

June 16, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

I am a married woman with a loving husband, stable job and brand new house. I am NOT ready to have children at this point in time. Does that mean that I should be denied birth control pills because some man thinks they are immoral? Does someone have the right to tell me that my 2 choices are get pregnant or don’t have sex? I have every right as a human, as a Christian, as a woman to have sex with my husband without worrying about bringing a child into this world before we’re ready. Isn’t having a child before you’re ready worse than taking a pill to prevent that? Birth control pills and abortion or 2 seperate subjects that everyone has somehow linked together. Opinions are just that - OPINIONS and should be kept to the individual who believes them. I don’t care what Joe down the street believes about my lifestyle. If your lifestyle doesn’t effect me, MORE POWER TO YOU!!!! If someone whats to make a choice that I don’t believe in, they are the ones that have to live with it, not me so why would I care so much?

By Ben

June 16, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this

Saying abortion is exploiting women is no different than saying strip clubss are exploiting women. In both instances it boils down to a choice by the woman.

I am noticing that we keep straying to the abortion topic, which kind of makes sense considering some people think the MAP is abortion. However, the bottom line remains, moral beliefs should not be interjected when you are in a service job. Arguing that it’s your right to refuse service based on those beliefs is laughable. By doing so, you are suggesting that your rights supercede mine.

No one is suggesting that pharmacists can’t have moral beliefs or exercise thier rights. They just can’t impress those beliefs upon others who don’t share them or negate the rights of others.

By DeltaX

June 16, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

Ken, Leave the sarcasm for others please. And if you do not want to refrain, then ignore my posts. If your judgement was in err, then take a step back and try again.

As for your reply, it is simple bc that is how you explained it - Not that it is actually simple. I graduated with a bio deg, so I know a little here.

Break things down and you will see it is not that simple bc “things do not create things.” This is proven. Matter does not spontaniously appear: the whole of the universe can be extrapolated out and in without finding a “source”.

If both parts are alive - they have life. A combination of things alive are just that - unless you want to make the case that something else is involved.

And what would that be?

By Linda

June 16, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

From the moment of conception on unless the process is stopped, the result will be a human baby. We’re all on the timeline of that process of life someplace. Again, this is a biological question with biological answers. Why there has ever been a debate about it in a literate population is beyond me. Those who can read, can read a medical book. I guess it is just easier to do away with the little rascal if one denies her or his humanity. All humans exist someplace on that timeline of life from conception until death. But only the powerful on that timeline acting in his or her best interest can destroy the powerless.

Back to Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. In the first place, I have to wonder which of MS’s ten siblings she wished her mom had aborted. Don’t whitewash Margaret. She was an elitist and a racist and a strong supporter of the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 which cut the US immigration to 5% of what it had been. This particularly impacted the European Jews who were trying to flee Nazi Germany. Thousands of Jews seeking asylum in the US were turned back from Ellis Island in the 1930s and were later killed in concentration camps. Hear what Margaret Snager wrote in “a Plan for Peace,” BIRTH CONTROL REVIEW, April 1932, “keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professionl prostitutes, and others in this classed by the immigration laws of 1924.”

There you go, PP’s icon Margaret was even predjudiced against those with STDs.

In April of 1932,MS advocated an option”to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their CHOICE of segregation (concentration camps) or sterilization.” (“A Plan for Peace, “BIRTH CONTROL REVIEW.

Again, MS has been successful beyond her wildest dreams. Her PP organization is making a fortune doing away with those MS thought were beneath her. In fact, there is more money to be made than ever before now that the market for baby parts has expanded with all of the new medical technology. That’s the why of the popularity of partial birth abortion. that small incision in the back of the neck kills while keeping all the parts marketable. And, of course, the later in the gestational term the life is ended, the more the “doctor” charges.

By Whiley

June 16, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this

Linda, you are officially an idiot. Or a man.

By DeltaX

June 16, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

Again: Yes, the whole process from coupling to death has been scientifically described. Therefore what is the confusion in the question? You both are answering what is already a given, and not explaining what the heck you are talking about that is so mysterious.

You state that on one hand, it is simple; yet on the other it is mysterious.

What is so mysterious?

By Ben

June 16, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

Here’s another thing. Those pharmacists that specifically refuse the morning after pill are only hurting their own cause. The MAP works best if taken within 72 hours right? The sooner the better right? Well they argue that the third option of the MAP is actually a chemical abortion right? Well if they are so hell bent on sustaining the life and preventing abortion, why wouldn’t they rush to fill the scrip before the third option takes place. Doesn’t that uphold the moral and religious convictions?

By DeltaX

June 16, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

Again: (Am I am insane for thinking someone can say something intelligent about this who is a christian - I think so; but one more shot)

The combination of spem and egg happens throughout the animal kingdom. So what is different here? We eat all sorts of babys, eggs, pregnant animals(softshell crab)…etc. They too fit your description; but are going to say: This is different, and that leads to my question.

Yes, the whole process from coupling to death has been scientifically described. Therefore what is the confusion in the question? You both are answering what is already a given, and not explaining what the heck you are talking about that is so mysterious.

You state that on one hand, it is simple; yet on the other it is mysterious.

What is so mysterious?

By Linda

June 16, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this

You are welcome to your opinion of me personally. My sex is a fact. I am a woman, mother and grandmother, who has lived long enough to see women duped into the privilege of becoming customers and laboratory rats for the drug companies and into paying the abortion industry to kill their children and sell their parts. Shame on us!

By Tony

June 16, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

WHEN DOES HUMAN LIFE BEGIN?

The metabolic view. There is no point when life begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are as alive as any other organism.

The genetic view. A new individual is created at fertilization. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties.

The embryological view. In humans, identical twinning can occur as late as day 12 pc. Such twinning produces two individuals with different lives. Even conjoined (“Siamese”) twins can have different personalities. Thus, a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12. (In religious terms, the two individuals have different souls). Some medical texts consider the stages before this time as a “pre-embryonic”. This view is expressed by scientists such as Renfree (1982) and Grobstein (1988) and has been endorsed theologically by Ford (1988), Shannon and Wolter (1990), and McCormick (1991), among others. (Such a view would allow contraception, “morning after pills”, and contragestational agents, but not abortion after two weeks).

The neurological view. Our society has defined death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. Conversely, some scientists have thought that the acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks) be defined as when a human life has begun. This view has been put forth most concretely by Morowitz and Trefil (1992). (This view and the ones following would allow mid-trimester abortions).

The ecological/technological view. This view sees the human life as beginning when it can exist separately from its maternal biological environment. The natural limit of viability occurs when the lungs mature, but technological advances can now enable a premature infant to survive at about 25 wks gestation. (This is the view currently operating in many states. Once a fetus can be potentially independent, it cannot be aborted).

The immunological view. This view sees human life as beginning when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self. In humans, this occurs around the time of birth.

The integrated physiological view. This sees human life as beginning when it has become independent of the mother and has its own functioning circulatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system. This is the traditional birthday when the baby is born into the world and the umbilical cord is cut.

By Ken

June 16, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this

Delta…

I wasn’t trying to interject any sarcasm… I also wasn’t trying to refrain… However, it is that simple…

The construction of a living, human being begins when a sperm and an egg meet. I don’t think anyone disputes that. That single event cranks into motion the process that concludes with the birth event. Human life does not exist without that event. A human life begins with that event.

I never said that “things create things.” I never said that “matter spontaneously appears.” Chem 101 defines the law of conservation of mass as ‘matter is neither created nor destroyed, it simply changes forms.’ Isn’t that what happens when a baby grows in the womb. The process takes matter from the mother and uses it to create the baby. That is why mom eats more when she is pregnant. The process also takes energy from the mother for the same purpose. That is why mom sleeps more when she is pregnant.

By DeltaX

June 16, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Tony, Want to try again?

MY question is “What are you defining as begining of life, when we all agree that life is present before conception?”

And then to follow up, why is that any different than eating softshell crab and giving her thousands of instant abortions?

Humans are different? How?

By Whiley

June 16, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this

Linda, do you eat scrambled eggs?

So we kill our children & sell their parts? hehehehe You can think whatever voodoo you want, just don’t try to legislate other people’s wombs.

By Whiley

June 16, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

Why are we debating this? You will never change the sexist mush brains of the anti choice. They can believe what they want. The problem is these strange people live & work amongst us, & even a few have made their way into the govt. which legislates laws that can affect our lives. I say, make all the anti choice-haters of women & healthy sex, live in one state & leave the rest of us alone. Where would be best place to keep them all confined so they don’t bother us?

By Linda

June 16, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

No, I said we PAY OTHER people to kill our children and then they sell the parts, flush them down the toilet, throw them out with the trash, or eat them, etc. If our babies are not human, who cares. If they are human, then maybe it is time to count the cost.

By Tim

June 16, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Whiley… one of the square ‘fly-over’ states

By Tony

June 16, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

I believe life begins at conception. Humans have souls and are created in the image of God.

I believe in God, the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ his only son, our Lord. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day He arose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right had of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins and the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.

What do you believe in?

By Ben

June 16, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

Since Tony began the rant, I have a question. If God was able to create Adam and Eve from the Earth, why did he have to use Mary to carry his Son?

By Zack

June 16, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

Whiley—You read Linda’s wise comments, had nothing whatsoever to say to refute them, and just shot back childishly with “You’re nuts!” This is just one of many examples of how you refuse to listen to reason and are fine with living in your complacent, ignorant state of mind. You still haven’t offered anything good to any of these blog forums, and unfortunately, you’re not alone on here.

Grow up.

By DeltaX

June 16, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Tony, Want to try again? (This will be your third attemt)

MY question is “What are you defining as begining of life, when we all agree that life is present before conception?�

By Eaton

June 16, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

My beliefs are far too complex to be neatly tied up in a creed created by a long-ago synod to enforce and maintain the orthodoxy and obedience of its followers and to distinguish itself from followers of the Aryan heresy.

I believe that the equality and dignity of all is far more important than any one religion. I believe that the qualities within a religion that define a good person are far more important than arbitrary behavioral mores and guidelines.

I believe that the destiny of man is our own, and that if God is truly the loving parent you describe that he would want it that way as well, as any good parent wishes for a child to spread his wings and fly.

I refuse to believe that a loving Deity of any sort would pour a soul into a vessel as fragile as a newly-created embryo, and that if by using those souless vessels, we can save tens of thousands of lives, then we certainly should.

This is but a fraction of what I believe…

Buy hey, that’s just me.

By Ken

June 16, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

I wonder if the folks promoting “choice” when it comes to reproductive rights are in favor of “choice” when it comes to other issues?

I would love to choose not pay into social security and invest the money myself, but I don’t get to, do I? Nope, b/c the government has set forth the idea that social security is in the best interest of of society. Tough noogies for me and everyone else who agree with that idea.

There are many other issues of “choice” that folks would disagree on. So please, before anyone starts ridiculing people and labeling them “anti-choice” think before you speak. A difference of opinion does not make that opinion less valid than your own.

By Ben

June 16, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

That wasn’t really me who posted that question!

By Tony

June 16, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

Delta Read my post. I believe I specified conception as the beginning of life. I don’t think life is present before conception. I do believe the sperm cell and the egg cell should not be tampered with.

By lozen

June 16, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

What Linda is saying is that women are only important as vessels to breed and bring as many kids into the world as possible. All these eggs and sperm, clumps of cells, fetuses, these potential human beings, are far more important than women’s lives, women’s needs and desires, women’s independence, and women’s freedom. Biology is destiny and how dare women control their own lives? I have never heard such a backward viewpoint! I can’t even begin to guess what world this woman is living in. Motherhood must be chosen with the knowledge that it’s a 24 hour a day, seven day a week job. It’s a lifetime committment. Motherhood must not be forced on women! Women cannot be free, self-determining, independent human beings if they can’t control when and if they reproduce. It’s hard for me to understand how any thinking human being, especially a woman, can basically be saying women are just breeding machines and that’s what we all should be doing all the time! It shocks me that people are still living in the dark ages in the 21st century. Men and women will never go back to having eight or ten children for a multitude of reasons.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 16, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

I recently heard a story on NPR about Margaret Sanger, and there is some support regarding her participation in eugenics. However, I think that ultimately her motivations were not out of trying to create a superior breed of human, but rather to prevent the creation of “abnormal” humans, such as the retarded or “morally deficient”. She was a product of her times, much the way Freud was. I believe her intent was for those born to have the best possible chance at survival, to live in a dignified and sustainable manner. This small truth about eugenics does not, however, indicate my support for Linda’s other statements; her posts smack of urban legend and conspiracy theory to me.

Maybe a different approach to this debate is whether biology is destiny and who gets to decide, society, religions, or the individual. Can we at least agree on no forced abortion and no forced pregnancy? Ultimately, I see this as a question of individual conscience, intention, balance, and dignity.

Until such time that that birth control becomes foolproof and affordable to all women, there will always be unwanted pregnancies that occur. Some women will choose to carry to term, other not; there are inherent risks in both choices; these choices must be made in the context of a woman’s physical, emotional, and economic situation, none of which should be subject to judgment by anyone but the woman, her partner, and her doctor. To invade another’s privacy and judge their life circumstances is to dehumanize them, hardly a “pro-quality of life” stance.

Can a woman be truly autonomous if she is not guaranteed the right to control her fertility? I find it offensive that there are folks who disparage another’s right to choose whether or not to be a mother by inferring that women gleefully run to the abortionist on a whim or because pregnancy is inconvenient. I’ve never met such a woman, and if I did, I certainly wouldn’t insist that she shoulder the burden of parenthood; she clearly is not ready for it. As for those who insist that there are women use abortion as a form of birth control, I ask, would you insist that someone so irresponsible be forced to take on the hardest job in the world?

I for one would love to see the number of abortions fall and be eliminated, as this would indicate a prosperous time when medical care and the other essentials of survival are affordable and equally accessible. The religious right are so closely tied with political conservatives whose battle cries of fiscal responsbility involve cutting welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare, and eschew national health care, pretty much guarantee that this will never happen.

Respect for the child begins with respect for the mother. If you don’t respect a woman enough to let her decide her own destiny, you are creating a subclass of humans, and thus are no better than Margaret Sanger and her misguided attempt to alleviate suffering thought eugenics.

By DeltaX

June 16, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

Tony, Let me try to help you with the question: You are stating (as well as many others), that “something” happens at conception. Since we all agree that life begins before conception; it is not LIFE that begins there. So what is this “something” that starts?

And then you will have to prove “it” exists.

Man, I am getting more disgusted by the idiots in this country every day. (err on the side of life, but kill those guys first, and do not kill this, but kill that bc it is a heathen…)

By Whiley

June 16, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

I know you are but what am I Zack. YOU grow up & stop being such a bible beating sexist embryo. (hehe I may be older, but I am young at heart !) I call things as they are, I don’t waste too much breath on proving why a clearly voodoo backward thought is what it is. It’s a waste of time. Those who truly believe that way are too far gone in the brain to be helped.

By kimberly

June 16, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

Here’s what I believe: Our President committed an unforgivable atrocity when he LIED us into a war with people who never attacked us, in which: (a) Thousands of innocent civilians have died, and their brown-skinned lives are just as valuable as those of an American fetus; (b) More than 1700 American soldiers have died, and their lives were valuable to their friends and families who loved and depended on them; (c) Thousands of American soldiers have been brutally maimed and disabled, and their benefits are CRAP, and they are having a hard time putting their lives back together and getting work, and that their lives SHOULD BE of even more concern to us, as good American patriots, than the lives of unborn cells; (d) The President and Vice-President’s personal circle of family and friends are becoming FILTHY rich off this illegal war, and the media is distracting us with tales of brain-dead anorexics and runaway white chicks so we won’t ask about the $8 BILLION missing from Iraq; and (e) If we made love instead of war, as Christ instructed, we could solve a lot more problems. But that’s just my opinion.

By DeltaX

June 16, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

Whiley, I agree with Zack

Enlightenment for you: Tony, Zack, and etc make their illogical/mean statements because of their anti-christian teaching/learning (no - i do not find you all to be christ-like).

Whereas Whiley has no such excuse.

By Eaton

June 16, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

A Google search of Linda’s highly improbable story about the “canabalistic” abortion provider yields exactly one hit - a story published on the Operation Rescue website. No newspapers, no television news, no nothing. Personally, I think that if this were a reputable story, it would have more coverage, don’t you?

By kimberly

June 16, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

Eaton, I’ve heard that Domino’s pizza contributes to the criminals and liars at Operation Rescue, so I always order Papa John’s instead. My pizza, my choice.

By Eaton

June 16, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

Darnit, and Domino’s makes good pizza too. Guess I’ll have to stick with the Chinese takeout.

By Whiley

June 16, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

DeltaX agrees with Zack? Say it ain’t so.

You have gone to the dark side!

By SB

June 16, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

Sandy, that was an amazing post - you summarized my thoughts exactly.

By lozen

June 16, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

I think Linda must be Boscoe’s wife! Notice how they both post all these so-called facts from fanatical Catholic and Pro-cell-clump sources? Notice how both of them live in the dark ages and have no respect for women? Notice how both of them say the same things over and over and over? Notice how both of them lie to prove their point? Linda just might be Boscoe!

By Tony

June 16, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

You know Delta, I knew better than to try to have a meaningful discussion with you. You and maybe some like you believe life exist before conception. I do not sir. Fertilization happens at conception where a new individual is created. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties. Other than that, I have nothing to add. Good day sir.

By lozen

June 16, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Sandy, you are always amazing in your posts! Kimberly, you are amazing too. Whiley, keep it up! Anybody Zack rants against has to be doing something right. Eaton, I’m with you and your response to Tony’s robotic beliefs. I don’t see any evidence that Tony ever had a thought of his own.

By JB

June 16, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Religious people are fools and you can’t argue with a fool. After all these are people who believe in some being they have never seen or never seen any hard physical evidence of its existence, kind of like Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. They also base their morals and rules on a book that no one can authenticate the author of over half the books therein, that has also been edited by Pope’s and translated several times, losing meaning and context, and also has books that contain conflicting 2nd hand accounts of the life of Jesus. Not to mention parts of it condone slavery and stoning people for things considered okay by modern standards. The truth is that these people consider religion more important than the individual. They are busy living their lives in preparation for the next life (that doesn’t exist), and they bristle at the idea of a person trying to get the most out of the only life they’re going to get. So they must do their best to force people to fit into their rigid lifestyle, thereby forcing their beliefs onto everyone else. And in this case it’s pharmacists deciding what is best for their customers, not based on scientific facts, but religious beliefs. To those pharmacists I say learn the phrase “would you like fries with that?” because they’ll need it soon.

By DeltaX

June 16, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

Whiley, Seriously, I have never seen a real post from you. It is either angst filled or demeeningly dismissive - never informative.

This could be used as constructive criticism; no slams here.

By Netbanker

June 16, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

Ken…thanks for giving me something to mull over last night. I hadn’t really distilled the issue down as you did so succinctly…”The real argument is defining “personal beliefs.â€? “

You asked whether it mattered if it was religious dogma, different interpretation of scientific results, or personal experience as the outcome is the same regardless of the definition in that the person will have to go elsewhere.

I expect a pharmacist to use their training, experience, and knowledge to raise questions, caution me against taking meds, or even stop the process when those are based on scientific interpretation or personal experience and I welcome that advice. However, when the sole reason for a refusal to fill a prescription is based on the pharmacist’s religious dogma I do have a problem with that. I do not ask my minister to fill my prescriptions any more than I go to a pharmacy for worship services.

By kimberly

June 16, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

“The tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.” - Aristotle -

By Brian Curtis

June 16, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Here’s a question: Do pharmacists ever flatly refuse to fill any OTHER kind of prescriptions than birth control?

Sure, they can find out medical history, check for drug interactions, and recommend against taking a particular medication… but in all those cases, they must (MUST) recommend contacting your doctor again to re-evaluate the situation.

Only when it comes to horrible, sinful sex do they simply sneer, refuse, and confiscate your prescription order.

By kimberly

June 16, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

“Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past years.” - Adolph Hitler -

By Netbanker

June 16, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

What I believe DeltaX is trying to get to is really how one defines life. Is it merely the biological processes that have been battered about in this discussion or is it, as I suspect, the infusion of that which makes us each an individual (commonly called a soul)? Depending on when a soul enters or attaches to a human vessel is really the question. This is not often discussed because it forces us to face facts that do not support our beliefs.

If ‘life’ begins at the moment of conception then those holding that position also mean that the soul attaches itself to that single cell upon fertilization. Otherwise it is merely a clump of cells. To hold this belief means that they must also acknowledge the millions of souls that are lost in those fertlized cells that do not become babies whether this occurs naturally or not. If life is sacred they must protect EVERY fertlized egg and the soul it holds. If they do not believe this when a soul is attached to the human vessel then they must admit that conception is not truly the start of life and therefore we are talking about just a clump of cells and aborting that clump doesn’t equate to the loss of a life/soul. What do these beliefs mean in terms of a still-born baby? Was a soul ever present or not? Does God put souls into the cosmic crap shoot of every fertilized egg or only infuse those human vessels with a sould when they are separated from the mother and thus their own, independent being?

Did I get it, DeltaX?

By Janice

June 16, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

OK, if the Pharmacists do not want to dispense certain kinks of drugs becasue of said reasons-Why not take that up the with the company they work for. Meaning, the Pharmacists should say I will not work for a company that will sell a certain type of medication. So instead of putting it on the person that needs the medicine, put it on youe employer. So stand up on your “soap box” and proclaim I will only work for a company that dispense medicine I believe in. Thus turning away a person that needs the medcicine that you do not agree with would never happen.

By lozen

June 16, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, here’s another of my favorites: “Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”

— Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

By DeltaX

June 16, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

That is it exactly.

I love you Netbanker for giving me hope that someone is outthere. Well kinda;)

By Netbanker

June 16, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

The following is an excerpt from George F. Will’s commencement address at the University of Miami entitled “The Oddness of Everything.� I urge you to read the entire address, but this part seemed most germane to sameness of our conflicts on this blog and I hope will make you stop and think as much as it did me:

“The more we appreciate the complexity and improbability of everyday things-including ourselves-the more we can understand the role that accidents, contingencies, and luck have played in bringing the human story to its current chapter. And the more we understand the vast and mysterious indeterminacy of things, the more suited we will be to participate in writing the next chapter.

This is so because the greatest threat to civility – and ultimately to civilization – is an excess of certitude. The world is much menaced just now by people who think that the world and their duties in it are clear and simple. They are certain that they know what-who-created the universe and what this creator wants them to do to make our little speck in the universe perfect, even if extreme measures – even violence- are required.

America is currently awash in an unpleasant surplus of clanging, clashing certitudes. That is why there is a rhetorical bitterness absurdly disproportionate to our real differences. It has been well said that the spirit of liberty is the spirit of not being too sure that you are right. One way to immunize ourselves against misplaced certitude is to contemplate-even to savor-the unfathomable strangeness of everything, including ourselves. “

By dp

June 16, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Many people overlook the fact that many women use BC for medical reasons - not for “social”. If a pharmacist denies a women her prescription, it could cause some real problems - many of these prescriptions are for irregularity, heavy flow, etc. The fact that people assume that it’s just a free ticket to promiscuity is a serious oversight.

We live in a country that allows us freedom to choose our beliefs, but don’t let your beliefs affect mine.

By Hannah Aldrich

June 16, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

The issue is one that the market can settle, if it becomes unpopular enough to have pharmacists working that will not fill certain prescriptions, then the pharmacy will stop hiring those pharmacists or be put out of business. However, no pharmacist should be forced to prescribe something that goes against their value structure, what about their right to choose?

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 16, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

Nicely explained Netbanker. As all profound thinking does, this raises as many questions as it answers.

One of the Catholic saints, St. Thomas Aquinas, I think, said that the soul enters the body upon first breath, also known as inspiration. (I’m sure Boscoe will treat us to an explanation if I am not correct…)

Since we are souls with bodies and the soul does not die, reincarnation would be a fair bet, a conservation of spirit, if you will. Some will say that the soul will be cast into eternal damnation for its sins, but this of goes against the purpose of humanity, which some believe is to recognize that there is no separation between ourselves and the creator. For the level of evolution that all of us bloggers are currently at, we need the body, but there may be a time when our pure consciousness is enough. Furthermore, I figure there is a blending of the past, present, and future, and all that is will create and recreate endlessly. Can you imagine a place without conflict?

Enjoy the ride. Go placidly amongst the noise and haste…

By Ben

June 16, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

Hannah - Noone is denying their right to choose, we are against their right to choose for someone else.

By lozen

June 16, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Hey, remember the white people behind the lunch counters who refused to serve black people? They had a right to choose to discriminate didn’t they? Yeah, but not anymore!

By Whiley

June 16, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

DeltaX, You’ve never seen a real post from me because I speak the language of an independent woman. My posts are invisible to those who still think not of this century.

I repeat, I do not feel I need to waste time arguing a point with anybody that thinks every backward, women hating, uterus controlling, socially guilting, anti choice thought. It’s a waste of time. I only debate my representatives & who I choose to vote for. I can’t control what people think, but I sure & hell can vote for individuals who ultimately make the LAWS that can directly affect me.

By JB

June 16, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Hannah, the pharmacists right to choose involves the choice to be a pharmacist. What comes with that choice is knowing that a doctor will write the prescription and then they will fill it. There is no moral quandry involved. If they do not believe in this arrangement, then they can pump gas or dig ditches, where they won’t be tempted to save everyone’s soul. The morality of the transaction, lies between the doctor and the patient. The pharmacist mixes and fills bottles. It’s like a cashier at Wal-Mart questioning whether you need that 2nd box of Little Debbie’s. It’s just not their place.

By DeltaX

June 16, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

As to Pharmacists:

My dad was a psychiatrist and after observing over the last 20 years I was witness to many fluctuations in a pharmacists practices.

They would do great things like notifying drs about conflicts between meds - to overstepping their bounds by obtusely/wrongly questioning the doctors opinion. My dad, when in private practice, would recommend a pharmacist based on their practice in these areas. Dad did not mind the pharmacist looking out for the intrest of the patient; but when a pharmacist would challange his choice/authority, they heard about it - and dad would not send anyone there. This cannot be done when working for the state bc of preferential and unfair reason.

Since then there has been talk of alowing a pharmacist to prescribe meds - due to the good ones out there and bad doctors loading up patients with meds.

Seems that pharmacist need to create/advertise their role more explicitly. While they are at it they can decide if they can withhold meds based on personal reasons - and then let the public know what they are doing. If we do not like it, we can call for a new role, and dr’s will be behind us.

My dr has “talked” to three pharmacists in the last four months because of how they handled me picking up my viagra.

By Netbanker

June 16, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Hannah…the pharmacist’s right to choose should be to the prescriptions or find a job that does not create a moral dilemma for themselves. Just a point of clarification…the pharmacist is filling the prescription not prescribing the drug.

If we give the pharmacist the right to refuse to fill any prescription on moral grounds do we also hold them legally responsible for any negative outcome incurred? Someone previously gave the example of a woman ending up pregnant because the pharmacist refuses to give her the morning after pill on moral grounds. Since it is only effective for up to 72 hours afterward, let us suppose that due to the refusal she can’t actually get the prescription filled until after that period has passed and thus becomes pregnant due to the pharmacist’s refusal. The pharmacist’s moral decision for the woman (who was OK with preventing a pregnancy, but not aborting if pregnant) results in her having a child. Should the pharmacist be legally liable for pre-natal care and expenses of the resulting child since the pregnancy wouldn’t have occurred had he filled her prescription? What about damages to the woman who may have had to quit a job due to her pregnancy? If not, why? The pharmacists choice over rode the patient’s choice and forced a consequence on her that she didn’t want in the first place. Why shouldn’t the pharmacist be responsible for his/her decision?

By Netbanker

June 16, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

Thank you Sandy. That is a VERY big compliment coming from you.

By JB

June 16, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

All this discussion about souls and when do you get one is ridiculous. All a soul is really is self-awareness. The knowledge that you exist and have thoughts and feelings above and beyond carnal instincts (to eat, procreate, survive). So talking about a soul getting attached to a cell is just plain ignorant and silly. Until you can become aware of anything, how can you be self-aware? I can’t speak for the entire human race, but those 9-months in the womb are non-existent in my memory, as is most of the first year of my life. A soul is not an organ in your chest, a cell that gets attached to your egg once fertilized or a ghostly spirit inside us, it’s merely self-awareness.

By DeltaX

June 16, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Whiley, So your purpose here is to jeer or preach to the choir?

Cool by me, but it is useless as “waste time arguing a point with anybody that thinks every backward, women hating, uterus controlling, socially guilting, anti choice thought.”

By lozen

June 16, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

To the Editor: Across the country legislators are attempting to block women’s access to contraception. Georgia is one of 20 states in which pharmacists are able to refuse to fill women’s prescriptions for contraception, including the morning-after pill, based solely on personal beliefs. Some politicians actually want to expand these restrictions! When a woman and her doctor decide that a prescription for contraception is in the woman’s best interest, a third party has no right to override that decision. Pharmacies must ensure that patients get their doctor-prescribed medication without delay or inconvenience. We know that birth control prevents unintended pregnancies and reduces the need for abortion. So why are politicians making it harder for women to get their pills instead of making it more accessible? The public should be outraged at this intrusion into medical privacy, and demand that our state legislature ensure that pharmacies fill prescriptions for women’s birth control.

By DeltaX

June 16, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

JB, The absurdity of it is what I was driving at.

The real arguement from conservatives is that souls are being lost/destroyed..etc. Since “soul” is non-descript and varies from person to person, and cannot be proven in any way at all: There is no arguement from the conservatives.

You cannot ask when, if you cannot prove it exists at all.

By lozen

June 16, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Deltax, I just have to know! How did the three pharmacists handle it when you picked up your Viagra?

By Netbanker

June 16, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

DeltaX that is the beauty of the religion-based argument. It requires faith and one can not argue faith. Now please stop asking those pesky questions that blow the doors off their logic…you unfaithful, heathen, non-believer!

By Whiley

June 16, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

hehe well you KNOW I wouldn’t preach to any choir. I really don’t know, it’s so frustrating being female in this world sometimes. Even though I’ve experienced much worse social discrimination than what’s going on today, I welcome the day I’m not shocked by the harsh treatment & socialization of women. The day birth control is celebrated as a good thing because it works & we are finally allowed to enjoy our sexuality. When religious groups realize that life begins at birth, & that it’s OK for a women to choose not to be a mother, not to give birth, & control the number of pregnancies she has. I find myself shaking my head in complete confusion when I hear of, one example, pharmacists that won’t give out birth control for goodness sakes ! To me there is no logic in it at all. If you cannot do a job, you should not have that job. Period. To protect these individuals under the name of religion is mind numbingly dumb to me. How can you seriously debate anyone that thinks it’s all OK?

By lozen

June 16, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

How long would I last in my job if one of the graduate students came to me for help and I said, “I will not help you; it’s against my religion because you’re living with another student and you are not married!” How about, “I will not help you because you’re a fundamentalist and I think your religious beliefs are wrong and have caused untold death, suffering and stupidity?” Yes, I have total right to my beliefs, but if my beliefs kept me from doing my job, my employer would have no qualms about firing me!

By Netbanker

June 16, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

D..I forgot the second part (although I included it in my response) where the faithful mention that you’re a non-believer therefore your opinion and logic have no meaning because you must be one of the faithful.

By DeltaX

June 16, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Lozen, One refuse. The second put restictions on filling the RX that were counter to my Dr. The third giggled with the girl behind the counter.

The first two have been reported in the past for insurance fraud bc they applied the insurance clause that would get them the most money, not save the customer, and pocketed the extra.

Typical childish behavior that I expect from %99.99 of humans.

By lozen

June 16, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

If one believes there is a soul then why worry about someone having an abortion? Doesn’t it seem reasonable that the soul that was going to enter that fetus would just find another fetus if birth is so necessary? The soul survives death. Abortion is death. In my case there was no abortion and I will die. So the outcome is the same. It doesn’t bother me at all to think that my mother might have had an abortion when she was pregnant with me because I have faith in the universe and everything would have been fine for me.

By DeltaX

June 16, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Sorry Netbanker, I understand that I should keep such questions to myself.

Understand that I actually have a faith that is counter to many of the secular people here. I read the bible and belive in god and jesus.

The only thing I know for CERTAIN is that I do not know anything for CERTAIN. I believe that jesus came to show us how to behave - but the religious and pompus rich people screwed it up. So I ask the hard questions, read the bible, read Ken Wilber (increadible stuff), existentialism…etc…and see what patterns overlap and fit.

I am happy with what I have found, and none of it actually conflicts with the bible reading I do.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 16, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

JB-Just out of curiosity, how would you explain collective subconsciousness or synchronicity? I agree with you that the soul is not an organ, but it is a form of energy.

The issue of conception is important in terms of DNA, which exists within time and outside of time; 99% of your genetic material remains dormant and chemically inert until it divides, but what triggers the division? The DNA itself? the creator? Or both? Where does self-awareness fit in?

Deepak Chopra says, “In spiritual reality, everything happens because it is meant to. The world is a meaningful place; everyone is working out their own lives’ purpose. At synchronous moments you get a peek at just how connected your life is, how completely woven into the infinite tapestry of existence.”

As for George Will, I think this is one of the most poignant things he has written, and I am not generally a fan. It kind of has a Zen satori moment: A student asks the master “What do I need to do to become wise? The master answers, “Start by not knowing.” Will invites us to to “savor-the unfathomable strangeness of everything, including ourselves.” Cool.

By Netbanker

June 16, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Whiley..I don’t get the reduce abortions, but with hold BC religious/conservative conundrum eitherA non-fertilized egg never results in a terminated pregnancy. It leads one to believe that the goal isn’t really to reduce abortions, but to force all pregnancies to be carried to term.

I really begin to wonder if it has anything to do with our sex-obsessed culture. Say what you will about the Europeans, but they are not sex obsessed, overly body conscious, and have no where near the rates teen pregnancy or abortion that we do. Of course, my peers at university also said that they had frank discussions about sex while growing up unlike most Americans.

By Ken

June 16, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

Netbanker…

I absolutely agree with you… I would not go to my pastor for a prescription and wouold not go to my pharmacy for worship.

I was simply trying to make the point that, if we allow pharmacists to make decisions based on their beliefs, the outcome is the same regardless of the belief structure used to make the decision.

Certainly we would want all professionals regardless of industry to make decisions outside of their religious beliefs. But that will NEVER happen. We are human and are subject to all of our personal belief structures, including religion. They color everything we say and do. The responses on this board prove it.

The only way to completely remove religious dogma from pharmacists is to make them nothing more than bottle fillers.

As for the vile post from Kimberly…

Your inference reeks of hate and contempt like most opponents to organized religion. Your attempt to connect billions of people to an evil, vile monster merely demonstrates to me that you or your loved ones have been hurt by the church. I apologize for any ill done to you and I offer you my prayers and on behalf of others I ask for your forgiveness.

With all human organizations there are flaws. But if one put the awful deeds on one side of the scale it would be far outweighed by the wonderful things the church does. We simply don’t see it b/c our society would rather tear something down than build something up.

By DeltaX

June 16, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

Sandy, “but it is a form of energy” - speaking of souls.

If so, it would be detectable, no?

Here I ramble on about what I BELIEVE. Actually the soul may not be detectable, just as light(typical spiritual metaphor for good reason) is not detectable - only its interaction with the world is - so is the same for a soul. Light travels at a constant bc it is in another dimension which has no time. If the soul is in a timeless dimension; then it stands to reason that it cannot perish - for that is a process and processes (by definition) need time.

Hence why we exist in this state. To be in a state of time, alowing processes to exist and unfold, teaching us of patience/love/etc. so we can understand it.

How can one have patience if there is no time?

By Tony

June 16, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

I have a post that will clearify you question Delta. It’s a little long. So, if you Netbanker, Brian or Sandy would like to obtain some truth, please advise and I will post. If not, may peace be with you.

By Netbanker

June 16, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

DeltaX…I do hope you’re kidding because I most certainly was. I LOVE questions that make your mind hurt figuring them out. No different than sore muscles from working out in the gym…we must keep working out our minds so they don’t become useless mush.

By Eaton

June 16, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Tony, you claim “truth”, yet I suspect that it will consist of yet another cut-and-paste lecture delivered and argued from the Christian perspective. That isn’t Truth, Tony…it’s opinion. There are as many, or more, non-Christians in the world as there are Christians, and they have their own beliefs as well.

By DeltaX

June 16, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

I think we both are kind of kidding. Such questions are impossibly frustrating when met with agendas - so more times than not I should keep them to myself.

It is just so damn crowded in my head - with all the voices debating it. Gotta let it out sometimes;)

Tony, No thanks, we had our talk and I really was trying to help you. Peace.

By kimberly

June 16, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Ken: Thank you for your apology and prayers. I was only providing an example that political leaders USE the church and the labels of religion to control people for their own agenda. Hitler cared nothing for the teachings of Christ, nor do, in my opinion, many of the people who run this country. Nor do, in my opinion, folks like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, who spew judgement and intolerance and fascism in the name of Christ, whose behavior and teachings they ingore. As to this week’s topic, yes, there is a frighteningly large movement in this country to control the lives of individuals, while at the same time, providing a carte blanche reign to a small number of rich people to do whatever they want, as long as it’s in the name of a corporation, a church, or a flag. They don’t care about the feelings of the pharmacist either, but they applaud like hell when the name of religion trumps an individual’s right to something.

By Whiley

June 16, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

If it’s a religious rant TONY DON’T DO IT ! ! DON’T DO IT ! ! !

By Netbanker

June 16, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

Ken…I’m not sure I completely agree with you about the outcome being the same regardless of belief structure and definitely not the statement that removing religious dogma makes them nothing but bottle fillers. Not applying one’s religious dogma to another doesn’t negate training, education, experience, research, or knowledge.

By Netbanker

June 16, 2005 05:16 PM | Link to this

Am I the only whose discussion keeps getting shorter? I appear to be moving backward in the space/time continuum only for the blog.

By jay

June 16, 2005 05:18 PM | Link to this

I’m a little disturbed by the way pharmacists are being portrayed in some of your responses.

“The morality of the transaction, lies between the doctor and the patient. The pharmacist mixes and fills bottles. It’s like a cashier at Wal-Mart questioning whether you need that 2nd box of Little Debbie’s. It’s just not their place.”

If your pharmacist dispenses anything and everything as ordered by a physician like a Walmart cashier, then I suggest you find a new pharmacist. I also suggest that you not put so much faith in your physician.

All pharmacists must now earn a doctorate…and for a good reason.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 16, 2005 05:48 PM | Link to this

Thanks Tony, but out of respect for the other bloggers I respectfully decline. Namaste (which by the way means I recognize the deity in you).

Delta, is the creator detectable? So if the creator and are souls are webbed, we probably would not recognize it as such. Not from this level of consciousness. As for time, it can be transcended…

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 17, 2005 08:27 AM | Link to this

Thanks to those of you who commented favorably to my posts yesterday, (and to those who actually read them!); I sometimes lack the time to acknowledge, and am truly humbled by the dedication of those who post here, whether or not we agree.

Forgive me for this lengthy post, but I thought it most appropriate given our discussions this and in past weeks.

Op-Ed Contributor New York Times

Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers

By JOHN C. DANFORTH (Republican) Published: June 17, 2005 St. Louis

IT would be an oversimplification to say that America’s culture wars are now between people of faith and nonbelievers. People of faith are not of one mind, whether on specific issues like stem cell research and government intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, or the more general issue of how religion relates to politics. In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics. With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions.

It is important for those of us who are sometimes called moderates to make the case that we, too, have strongly held Christian convictions, that we speak from the depths of our beliefs, and that our approach to politics is at least as faithful as that of those who are more conservative. Our difference concerns the extent to which government should, or even can, translate religious beliefs into the laws of the state.

People of faith have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to bring their values to bear in politics. Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God’s truth, and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action. So they have developed a political agenda that they believe advances God’s kingdom, one that includes efforts to “put God back” into the public square and to pass a constitutional amendment intended to protect marriage from the perceived threat of homosexuality.

Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.

But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.

When, on television, we see a person in a persistent vegetative state, one who will never recover, we believe that allowing the natural and merciful end to her ordeal is more loving than imposing government power to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube.

When we see an opportunity to save our neighbors’ lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research, and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so.

We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.

Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals.

For us, living the Love Commandment may be at odds with efforts to encapsulate Christianity in a political agenda. We strongly support the separation of church and state, both because that principle is essential to holding together a diverse country, and because the policies of the state always fall short of the demands of faith. Aware that even our most passionate ventures into politics are efforts to carry the treasure of religion in the earthen vessel of government, we proceed in a spirit of humility lacking in our conservative colleagues.

In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God’s side and you are not, that I know God’s will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God’s kingdom is certain to produce hostility.

By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God’s truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth. We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God’s work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree, and to overcome the meanness we see in today’s politics.

For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people. We do not exclude from worship those whose opinions differ from ours. Following a Lord who sat at the table with tax collectors and sinners, we welcome to the Lord’s table all who would come. Following a Lord who cited love of God and love of neighbor as encompassing all the commandments, we reject a political agenda that displaces that love. Christians who hold these convictions ought to add their clear voice of moderation to the debate on religion in politics.

John C. Danforth is an Episcopal minister and former Republican senator from Missouri.

By Tim

June 17, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this

Sandy/Sanhan… thanks for sharing that article… I really enjoyed reading it

By Tim

June 17, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Sandy/Sanhan… thanks for sharing that article… I really enjoyed reading it

By Linda

June 17, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

I have reread what has been written to be sure of the arguments here. What I read tells me that those of you who feel pharmacist must fill perscriptions no matter their personal moral convictions think those of us who have the opposite view are fanatical Christians and our opinions deserve to be dismissed and we deserve to be personally vilified. On the other hand, we should all, despite our deeply held convictions, accomodate the results of unrestrained sexual activities and make sure those participating get what they need and quickly to avoid the consequences, be it MAPS or abortions. From what I read, you have determined that whether or not the unborn child is truly a human or not, truly has a soul or not; no matter what indignities the body of that unborn child suffers (not human, deserving of no dignity) the only one who matters here is the mother and what she wishes.

What is missing in all of this (excluding the moral implications) is the “elephant in the living room”—sexually tranmitted diseases. I have spent this morning going through all of the government (and the Planned Parenthood site)for current information. When my husband served as a medic for the Air Force in Vietnam there were three STDs (all treatable by antibiotics). There are now 26 STDS (gonorrhea, syphilis, genital warts, herpes, chlamydia, HPV, etc.) Half of the STDs will last a lifetime, some will kill the infected. There are 15 million new cases diagnosed yearly in the US and the cost to the US population in general is in the billions of dollars.The most widely spread is HPV. An epidemic of that in the rural counties around here has resulted in an unprecedented number of young women in their twenties who are having hysterectomies.

The bottom line is the human body was not not designed to be sexually abused by having numerous different sexual partners. We are not like dogs who can engage in indiscriminate sexual activites ithout consequences. One of the writers related those who value and bare children to cockroaches. We are not insects. Our bodies are covered by a natural law which, when violated, metes out its own disasterous results.

By JJ

June 17, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

Linda… I think you are confused. I know I have posted that I feel a pharmacist should fill a prescription that is a legal prescription written by a MD, because the pharmacist may not know why the patient is getting the medication. Many medications have multiple uses. Birth control has kept many women from hemorrhaging and also kept many from have debilitating migraines. It has nothing to do with a pharmacist moral choice whether those women get her medication.
And as for the elephant in the room STD’s argument….. you are assuming that all women on BCP’s must be sexually immoral… forget the millions of married women that are on them.

By Eaton

June 17, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

Linda, if anyone is making deep assumptions in this discussion, it is you. Why is it, that whenever the topic of birth control arises, the Puritan element leaps to the conclusion that anyone seeking its use must be engaging in indiscrimnate sexual activity? The gist of your entire first paragraph suggests that pharmacists are refusing to distribute medications because they are making moral judgements about the patient, assuming that that person is sexually permissive and therefore underserving of assistance, compassion, or basic human feeling. How simplisitic of them, how judgemental, how uncharitable.

Truly, your Christian love and compassion overwhelm me. The kind of moralizing and pushing of morality on others is exactly why I, and some others, react to your so-called opinions with what you view as scorn and vilification. Having an opinion is one thing, but acting in a way that directly affects another person negatively is entirely another. I have read more than one account of these noble pharmacists you so obviously admire; in many cases, the pharmacist not only refused to fill the prescription but refused to return the slip as well.

Furthermore, your discussion of STDs, while referencing a serious health issue for all of us, is nothing more than a red herring in this particular debate. As a teacher, you must be aware of the danger of drifiting into logical fallacy when arguing.

By Linda

June 17, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

I didn’t mention BCPs. My problem with BCPs (those which do not prevent implantation from taking place that is; those cause chemical abortions, the same as MAP) is that they put women at risk for adverse reactions. The literature is abundant on that. Actually, one of my daughters was required to take BCPs when she was on Retin-A. The BCPs caused migraine-like headaches, weight gain, and general malaise. She came off of the BCPs and those symptoms disappeared immediately.

By the way, I meant “bear” not “bare” children, and “governed” not “covered” by natural law.

By Linda

June 17, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

Thanks, Eaton. You just proved my point. If I disagree with you and have another point of view, I am a Christian who is pushing my moral viewpoint on you and deserve for my argument to be dismissed and to be personally vilified.

By Eaton

June 17, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

Linda, I’m curious. There are many regimine-type drugs that aren’t BCP, that are taken by both men and women. Some of these have possible side effects - in fact, ALL of them have possible side effects. ALL drugs have possible side effects. My own father reacted negatively to a prescription acid-reflux regimine and had to switch to something over-the-counter.

Yet, I only hear you claiming that BCP is part of some great conspiracy to use women’s bodies as chemical experimental laboratories, or to exploit women chemically, etc.

Why aren’t you equally concerned with all drugs?

By Crystal

June 17, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this

Thanks, Sandy, for posting the excellent view of a ‘moderate’ Christian as written by the Rev. John C. Danforth. His well written thoughts are conforting.

On the topic, I don’t like the word ‘forced’. Slavery and indentured servants are outlawed. No employer can legally force someone to do something against his will. The pharmacist must decide if his convictions are strong enough to withstand the results of his choice—probably legal termination for not performing his work.

Strong convictions open the door to good and bad actions. Most of us know them. Examples of the bad are Muslim terrorists and bombers and killers over reproductive issues. Examples of good could be the heroes of our last century; Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ghandi and Martin Luther King. These were people of strong convictions who gave their lives for what they believed was right.

I am thankful to be an American where we still have choices and can speak our minds about them.

By It Happens

June 17, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

Linda, you are so ignorant. A dr would not put someone on bc for Retin-A. Retin-A is a topical lotion and has no affect on a growing fetus. Perhaps, you were speaking of Accutane, which when taking during pregnancy WILL, not might, cause horrible birth defects. I know from experience.

By Eaton

June 17, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this

Well, no Linda - I wasn’t talking about you sharing your opinion. I was referring to anyone who, by their actions or inactions, forces his or her moral judgement on another individual, such as a pharmacist refusing to help a patient because of moral judgments.

Your own words have told us that you’re a conservative Christian, so I really don’t think I was making any uncalled for assumptions there, either. However, I’m used to people like you playing the martyr card, so your reaction doesn’t surprise me.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 17, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

Linda, legislating morality via religious dogma and reducing access to health care choices (including birth control and safe early abortion) as is currently being done by the religious right and fiscal conservatives respectively, is not going to produce healthier women or babies.

Your point about the relevence of STDs is noteworthy; prevention and education are clearly preferred. However, regular affordable, competent, and compassionate medical care without stigma or interference from religious or political groups will do more to save lives and produce healthy babies in the long run than will the misinformation, scare tactics, and condemnation on moral and religious grounds that we are currently witnessing. The latter clearly is not working; the former has not yet been implemented.

I agree that we are not dogs; I assume dogs mate merely for reproductive reasons, while people clearly do not, whether or not you think they should. I guess this is the other elephant in the room, how human nature reacts when forced into decisions that disregard their particular circustances, that is painting all members of a group with the same brush. It’s not desireable for either camp, and clearly violates the universal morality of treating others the way we wish to be treated.

The question should not be about which demeans the body more, disease or lack of liberty. The question is how we will approach both of these to alleviate suffering and inequality in the most humane and compassionate fashion.

By Eaton

June 17, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

Let’s be more general, Crystal. The good are those who take stands for themselves but not at the cost of others. The bad are those who seek to force others to act as they believe they should.

Did Ghandi refuse to help someone? No. Did MLK? No. Bonhoeffer certainly did not, and paid the price for it.

There is a tremendous distinction that we keep avoiding between taking a personal moral stance and using a moral belief to punish or judge another. That’s the real issue - it isn’t really about what drugs are OK and whether or not someone can be forced to follow certain actions. It’s whether or not it is ethical by action or inaction to bring another person to harm because of your moral beliefs.

I firmly believe that the answer is no - it is not OK. If you can not operate in a particular role, then remove yourself from that role. Do not continue in the position if you can not ethically fulfil its responsibilities. It is absolutely wrong to remain in a position of authority and trust if you plan to betray both of them out of some personal moral outrage.

By sage

June 17, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

Ah, poor Linda you may believe having multiple sex partners is abusing your body, so please only have one! I just want to tell you, you may miss something incredible. For me, having multiple sex partners is educational, fun, enlightening, and perfect for me and all the changes I’m going through in my life. If I’d only had one,I would never have known ecstatic, spiritual, breath-taking, total body sex; my first husband wasn’t very experienced. Actually he was a virgin when we married. I am so glad I didn’t listen to an outdated set of religious morals and people like you because I wouldn’t have missed that for anything. I believe it’s unnatural (and boring)for anyone to have only one sexual partner in their entire life! Perhaps if you’d ever experienced that life-changing kind of sex, you wouldn’t be so judgmental and rigid about what others should do!

By JJ

June 17, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this

Sandy/S… thanks, not only for the article (which I have copied and forwarded to like thinking individuals) but also for your response to Linda.

Linda, my statement to you was to show, that not all people on this blog that disagree about what pharmacist should or should not do, have done anything other than state their opinion. They have not nullified other opinions by name calling or classifying them as conservative Christians. They have stated their opinion and the rational.
I am sorry if you can not see that there are those that disagree with you, not based on our morals, but based on our rights as Americans. Others morals should not imped the rights of any.

By Les

June 17, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this

This guy Eaton is one messed up dude. He’s using this blog for free psychotherapy. I’ve been reading this thing for a while and decided to jump in once. Eaton, your sexual preferences are old, stale and boring. Can you come up with something new? You are sleep-inducing.

By Julien

June 17, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Shaunti Feldhahn’s comment are erroneous. These are not “Mom and Pop” pharmacies refusing to fulfill prescriptions. These are branded pharmacies. Recent cases have involved CVS, Eckerd and Kmart. I’ve very surprised that the pharmacy and the pharmacist have not been sued. In the CVS incident, the pharmacist was not fired. Eckerd promptly fired three of their pharmacist after a refusal. As a result of this incident I do not shop at CVS, and will refuse to do so until they fire any pharmacist who let their beliefs trump their professionalism. This new pharmacist movement is terrifying.

By Eaton

June 17, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

Don’t read Les. If all you get is a discussion of sexual preferences, you aren’t reading very hard.

By Lyrazel

June 17, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

When people grow up and start to get old the body begins a deterioration that we call old age. Elders come to pharmacies to aquire perscriptions and pharmasists fill them, caution about other medications as well as give helpful advice about side-effects. The older you get the more pills you get.

As women get older they no longer need BC and while these WtoW arguments +/- about BC has maintained us for the past 6 days—I find them irrelevant. Women will battle this battle until men decide to take control of their bodies! Men need pharmacutical companies to develop male BC—and if you anti-abortionists would for once target those medical companies for NOT providing safe and easily dispenseable BC for men in the 40+ years there has been pill BC—instead of continuing tirades against women, doctors and pharmacists—the debate would end. Abortions would be a thing of the past and only for complications. I think victimization of women is still so much a part of religious life it will be very hard to end this peti-tirade. Cripe! So much drivel about the santity of life—but when we look at the living we see—religious santity of life exists only in the womb—once they are born—they are imperfect, flawed and despicable.

But my concerns are for the elders of our nation who are in hospices where a pharmacist is employed to provide end-of-life medications to allow a dignified unpainful death. I had a wake-up-call with the T.Shiavo tirades. If we allow pharmacists to decide they can pick and choose which drugs to dispense perhaps they will stop giving drugs for unconscious-unrecoverable patients.

Because of Shiavo, doctors in Congress, laymen and doctors without medical facts, debated her medical care. We find out after the autopsy that all the parents and Governor/Congress were wrong—not just a little wrong but so far away from TRUTH that PT Barnum could have done a better job of medical analysis. It appalled me—their campaigns for life cost her a death with dignity.

So while you prattle about abortion and moral dignity remember—life might begin in the womb but when you are no longer in control of your body, when you seek release from twisted, broken flesh encasements, when your bones have calcified so movement is no longer an option and deaths door is open—will your pharmacist renege on his obligations to you—or will there be peace and dignity to depart this phase we call living?

By Crystal

June 17, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

I think the pharmacist refuses to fill certain prescriptions because he thinks it is wrong to do so. The patient is not ‘forced’ to reform, just go elsewhere. The pharmacist is standing by his convictions even to his own detriment. As I mentioned before, this can be good or bad. I do not agree with this particular action but it is his decision.

In America we are allowed diverse opinions. We are a democracy. The decision on whether they are accepted as standards depends upon the citizens. The process may be slow, but is works.

By DeltaX

June 17, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Would anyone concur that there is a violation of code that is increasing in the last few years?

By this I am refering to: Judges disobeying direct orders bc of personal beliefs(ten commandments, performing same sex marriage), Elected officials giving Dr. testimony via video(schiavo), Govenors overriding law (schiavo again) - we all know the abundance of these personal descisions.

And the point bringing this up is that there used to be a given amount of respect for our system and how to go through due process to change these things if you do not like them. I am not making any claim as to who’s opinions may be more accurate/moral; only that there is a process for this that was once used, but now people act as though they are above it.

Could this be the problem that could be solved?

That no matter who you are and what your beliefs are: There is a respectful/adult manner to raise the issue - and if everyone returns to the notion that the process is for ALL of us, we could pick up and move forward?

By lozen

June 17, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

Les, well, jus’ take yo little ole self somewheres else then dude. Eaton is very intelligent and a good writer and I enjoy his posts very much.

By Eaton

June 17, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

I respectfuly disagree, Crystal. The pharmacist IS forcing a belief on someone else. The effects of his action may not be catastrophic, but that doesn’t negate them. I’m sure a person so refused endures some measure of humilitation - who wouldn’t? There is inconvenience to someone who then has to go find another pharmacy. There is, in the case of the MAP, a very definite urgency to fill the prescription.

Granted, these are not life-threatening, though a MAP delivered too late could certainly be life-ALTERING. I just don’t believe that it’s OK for someone to take an ethical stance at the expense of an innocent person.

Look at it differently - let’s say a Quaker finds him or herself where a violent crime is taking place. There’s a gun within reach, and if the Quaker so chooses, he or she could save the victim’s life. Either possible action would violate the Quaker’s moral beliefs. Which occurs?

By Lyrazel

June 17, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

Crystal, what happens when the patient cant go anywhere else? What if they are confined to a bed, as my argument states prior. You assume all people have auto transport. You assume all people have use of limbs. You assume the pharmacy structure is not part of another organization. Just what rights do patients have—or are you saying patients have no rights and are screwed because of someones belief being imposed over perscribed medications.

Just when do people STOP playing god with other peoples lives?

By kimberly

June 17, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Senator Frist today is denying that he made a diagnosis (Shiavo), saying that he would never make a diagnosis via videotape. That’s funny, because he grandstanded in front of America, using his special knowledge as a doctor to determine from the videotape that Mrs. Shiavo was responsive to visual stimuli. HAHA! OH, okay Senator. Now you’ve explained that you didn’t actually do that. Okee dokee! Geez. Yes Delta, things HAVE gotten out of hand!

By Eaton

June 17, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, there’s a letter in the AJC today where the writer basically claims that the autopsy was fraudulent. Some people will never care about facts or truth. Frist can get up on screen and claim he never said…whatever, and some people will believe him, even if presented with evidence to the contrary.

By Lilith

June 17, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this

Organized religion takes so much life, so much experience, so much growth and development and joy and peace in living away from human beings. I visited the church of a friend in a small GA town recently. I was amazed! It was a small store-front church but amazingly advanced technologically. They had a group of talented musicians, the words of all the songs were shown on a huge screen at the front of the church. It was so emotional and such a release for the people of that church. They sang, cried, screamed, danced, and let out all their feelings. It’s probably the only place they get to do that if they really follow the restrictive rules of their religion. I believe the catholic church restricted sexuality because people wouldn’t need the church if they were fulfilled sexually. Without sexual frustration, hell, and the devil why would anyone need organized religion? I agree with Sage. Women who only have one sexual partner (or men - if there are any) will never know what they’re missing!

By Lozen

June 17, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

Hummmmm, very interesting and juicy comments ladies: Sage and Lilith. Why shouldn’t Frist get in your face and lie; that’s just part of our guvment now isn’t it? If you tell a lie long enough the sheeple with believe you. It’s a proven fact.

By Lyrazel

June 17, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

Do we see and Jeb Bush apologize to Mr Shievo for Terrys Law, Frist apologize for wanting the brain-dead-blind woman to come before congress and plead her case? Do we see the President say: we erred for life but we took dignity from a woman who was diagnosed for 12 years as comatose—her right to die. I am sorry folks, looks like I had a bad intellegence report from field agents…

By Lozen

June 17, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, ha ha, you have a sense of humor! Another bad intelligence report!

By JB

June 17, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

Fundamentalist Christians don’t want people to have condoms, they don’t want people to have birth control, and they certainly don’t want people to have abortions. You can’t win with these wackos. GET THE MESSAGE. Not everyone shares your beliefs, and most never will. Humans are programmed for sexual activity. It’s the most basic instinct we have, to reproduce. And no matter how many church services you sit through, those urges must be met. So should we overpopulate the world with children, simply to satisfy the prudishness of a few? Or should we be proactive and make arrangements to fulfill our basic instincts while preserving the order of modern society and protecting against disease? I say the latter is our course of action. If you want to deprive yourselves, then that’s your business. But you have neither the right, nor the mechanism to control other people’s lifestyles. And you should take a closer look at yourselves and your policies on sex. Abstinence is a joke. It’s like saying, maybe if we ignore the subject with our children it’ll go away. Teenage pregnancy statistics show that if you don’t teach them how to have safe sex, they will have sex, and not protect themselves at enormous consequence. Religion must bear responsibility for stigmatizing birth control/condoms to the point that people don’t use them and contribute to the disease rate, unwanted pregnancy rate, and abortion rate. They make it worse and don’t even know it.

By It Happens

June 17, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

Eaton, “The effects of his action may not be catastrophic”

I beg to differ. My deformed baby was catastropic.

By Linda

June 17, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Oh, my goodness! What despicable evil will you girls come up with next. I just hope no teenagers are reading this trash! Marriage is sacred. Sage and Lilth and Lozen are just sluts! Sluts, sluts, sluts. Women are not supposed to enjoy that dirty stuff anyway. This is what happens when people have no morals. This is what happens when liberals take over a country. This is waht happens when women have freedom! they start enjoying sex and they become sluts. They are persecuting me and all christians and trying to make us believe we should have slutty thoughts and dirty feelings and it won’t work. You are all going to hell and I hope you think about all that animal rutting then! They will be punished. We will look down on you from heaven and say, ha ha how do you feel now.

By kimberly

June 17, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

Actually, BREAKING NEWS: Jeb has now convinced a prosecuter to investigate suggested discrepancies in Michael Shiavo’s account of Terri’s collapse FIFTEEN YEARS AGO! So… they lost the state grandstanding and their attempt to send troopers into the hopsice and plug her up again, and they lost the congressional grandstanding in which Wubya flew back from Crawford in the wee hours, and they lost the battle to keep her plugged in and make her a poster child, and they lost the validation they hoped for in an autopsy, so now JEB BUSH has nothing better than to attempt, ONCE AGAIN, to ruin Michael Shiavo’s life for political gain. You only THINK things can’t get more absurd, but they always do.

By kimberly

June 17, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

Hey Linda, if Sage and Lilith and Lozen are sluts, then SO AM I! Haha! I am what my creator made me. Hallelujah! My creator made me passionate and responsive. My creator gave me a deep-seated need to comfort and be comforted in the physical sense. But there’s a chance you may be at least partly correct. So every few months or so, I arrange for a good spanking to purge me of my guilt. HAHAHA!!! Try it sometime!

By Eaton

June 17, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

My, my Linda. I do believe your true colors are finally showing. After all of your snide comments about teenagers using dirty words, now you’re calling other women sluts and condemning us all to hell. Tell us again about how you are persecuted?

By Crystal

June 17, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

I do not think the pharmacist was playing God. He was trying to do what he thought God wanted him to do. Some of us disagree with that. The company he works for probably disagrees with that. But I doubt that the pharmacist was breaking any legal code. The patient might simply call 911 for emergencies. Each person decides on his moral values. Our country allows some diversity even in such elements as ethics and morality.

As to the Quaker, Eaton, he would stop and pray for all if his convictions were strong. No violent action. As to Ghandi and MLK, they refused peacefully to help those who made laws not equal for all races. Bonhoeffer refused to help the Nazis. Strong convictions there. They knew the risks.

Our citizens try to develop laws for justice. That is where we speak the loudest in America.

By Eaton

June 17, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

Has anyone ever seen the play “Sister Mary Ignacious Explains it All For You” by Christopher Durang?

Linda is Sister Mary Ignacious, to a “T”.

By Lyrazel

June 17, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Linda, hopefully when you and yours reach heaven you will cease casting judgement against others.

Thanks for the laugh. Concerning that animal rutting that is ruining life, I would suggest spaying and neutering practices begin in the church of your choice.

By Sandy/Sanhan

June 17, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

Before anyone jumps to conclusions, I think some troll posted under Linda’s name; maybe it was A Real (Small) Man.

By Eaton

June 17, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

• do not think the pharmacist was playing God. He was trying to do what he thought God wanted him to do. Some of us disagree with that. The company he works for probably disagrees with that. But I doubt that the pharmacist was breaking any legal code.*

I don’t disagree with someone doing what he thinks God demands of him, so long as that does not interfere with someone else. That’s where the “your rights end where mine begin” philosophy kicks in.

And no, the pharmacists in question may not be breaking any laws. But we all know that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do something.

By Benin Dakar

June 17, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

Pharmacists refusing to fill legitimate doctor’s medication orders based on their private religious beliefs are extremely troubling to me. Why should a pharmacist have the right to interfere with an agreed upon medical treatment between a patient and their doctor?

If a pharmacist really feels strongly about dispensing a certain medication, then it is incumbent upon that pharmacist to find a work setting that supports their personal beliefs.

For example, if a person finds alcohol consumption abhorrent, then that person would make a conscious choice not to work at a liquor store or restaurant or club that sells alcoholic beverages. It would be ridiculous for a person who found alcohol consumption objectionable to accept employment as a bar tender and then only agree to serve non-alcoholic drinks to patrons.

Pharmacists who do not want to dispense certain medications should seek employment at pharmacies that support their religious beliefs. They should not accept employment at pharmacies where a varied general public, should have a reasonable expectation of having their prescription filled.

People who choose to enter the medical profession at any intersection and level must be people who are able to work with an eclectic human clientele.

Health professionals should expect that most people whom they encounter will have differing cultures, customs, economic wherewithal, and ways of life than they do.

However, the common denominator is that everyone is a human being worthy of respect and of the ability to make and be accountable for their own life choices.

Benin Dakar Duluth, GA

By Lyrazel

June 17, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

I do not think the pharmacist was playing God. He was trying to do what he thought God wanted him to do. Isnt that playing god with someone elses life? You hear gods voice/wisdom? Ok, what happens if his voice/wisdom are not gods but human-caused? You see, it comes down to Crystal, you believe YES, people should play god with others lives. Maybe its ok for the pharmacist to judge his own life—but does she have the right over a stranger? No. Wrong job.

Eaton, that Quaker thing is all wrong. The Quaker should call 911 and let the police deal with the situation. There is no reason to use violence to prevent violence, unless you are the current government.

By Eaton

June 17, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Lyz, it was a hypothetical situation posing an ethical quandry, constructed as a more extreme parallel. It wasn’t meant to be a real-world example.

By DeltaX

June 17, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

Why is it not enough that we have a system in place for people to voice their concerns for change?

Because people want what they want and they want it NOW? So I can take pretty polly if I want her, I can that the Jag if I want it…I do not think person “z” should be able to have their beliefs, so I have an inquisition. Torture,bullwhip, what else is condoned by the fundies of any agenda?

Too depressing to think about it.

The fact that we are debating this is childish. Once again I am ashamed to say that I am associated (by country) with these ignorant pompus judging fools.

Now, when I travel, I go by my turkish roots and say nothing about being american.

By Ben

June 17, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

Gotta love sluts. lol. If all sluts are going to hell, then I want to go too.

By Archie

June 17, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

I disagree with the person that said the pharmacist was doing what he thought God wanted him to do. I think what he did was pure cow manure as it is a disgrace that people like that are associated with Christianity. I see people smoking reefer every weekend but I don’t snatch it from their hands and I could probably say God wants me to do something about that. I mind my business and there’s a church every 2 miles in Columbia so if you want to know God it’s easy enough to find a starting point. Many people that are siding with the pharmacist know he’s wrong but go along with him for the sake of argument but that’s not what Christianity’s about. It doesn’t do any good to quote scripture then do the opposite and of course people have the right to any opinion but it’s illogical to not serve someone because of a value system in this case. A pharmacist that can’t serve all of the people in this case should be fired.

By kimberly

June 17, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Ben. I was beginning to think no one would stick up for us. {;->

By Eaton

June 17, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

Kimberly said: “Thanks, Ben. I was beginning to think no one would stick up for us. {;->”

Must…avoid…obvious…off-color…joke…must…

By Ben

June 17, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, I definitely have your back in that one. lol

By Bruce

June 17, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

If a known drug addict walks into a drug store with a prescription for a drug the pharmicist knows is only a fix and has no other medical purpose other than so the patient can get high, should they fill that prescription?

In the town where I work I have a friend that is pharmicist and there are 4 or 5 drug stores. It is a small sized city and they know who is and isn’t an addict. They (the pharmicist) all refuse to fill the doctor prescribed medicine. The doctor is made aware of it and they call each other to warn them this person is on their way to another store. Is this acceptable? I know in larger cities it would be almost impossible to practice this but it is common in rural areas.

By Randy

June 17, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

So Ben thinks that if alot of sluts are going to hell, he wants to go to. Like Satan is going to let you do anything there! He is just going to make it so that you see it but can’t do anything about it. You have heard the statement, something is going to make your life miserable, he will make your eternity miserable. That’s his job. Stupid statement Ben.

By Ben

June 17, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

Thanks Randy, but the whole idea of heaven and hell is pretty stupid too. But from the way you described it, I feel like I’m living in hell on earth right now. I see a lot of sluts here and can’t do anything about it.

And if there were a heaven and hell, why would I want to be in heaven with the majority of the people who think they are destined to be there any way.

Can’t remember the comedian who said it, or exactly how it went but basically — “All the cool people will be in hell!”

By Eaton

June 17, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Randy has now confirmed for all of us that he has absolutely no sense of humor.

By Eaton

June 17, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

Ben, Twain said it first. “Heaven for the Climate, Hell for the Company”

By JJ

June 17, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Bruce, yes that is acceptable. Reasoning, still working within their scope of practice. Giving a addict a ‘fix’ is not beneficial to the client. AND it is the Pharmacist responsibility to NOTIFY the MD why he would not fill the Rx.
However, if the MD at that point states, I am aware this client has an addiction problem, however I am also aware that this client has a medical condition that warrents the Rx, the pharmacist & MD can come to an arrangement for an alternate therapy.
Notifing the MD of a possible condition (or drug interaction,) is what a pharmacist should do… they have every authority to question a Rx and every responsibility to do so. BUT their moral code can not dictate whether a patient gets a medication that is legal.

By Lyrazel

June 17, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Randy…as I remember Mary Magdaline was a whore…a slut…and gee, she got in behind the Pearly Gates….let thee without sin cast the first stones…maybe Ben can make a joke? I got the joke. Perhaps the young lady Linda should not have called people sluts to begin with?

Bruce, The pharmacists should never be able to bandy about someones perscription like a soccer game. If its a legal prescription it should be filled. The fact these pharmacists are playing roulette with someones health should be subject to criminal investigation, addict or not.

By Ben

June 17, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Eaton - Well Twain was a smart man. lol

By Lilith

June 17, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

Ah pity the poor fundies. What they have sacrificed for their invisible god: fun, laughter, good times, ease in the body, happiness, peace, exploration, adventure, knowledge, good sex, open mindedness, appreciation of the world, love of this life! We must remember as they judge us so they judge themselves. Why would anyone choose that if they knew any better?

By Archie

June 17, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

Ben I heard a comedian say that the best barbecue will be in hell. So you will have the best liquor,sluts and good food. Is it really that bad? Yeah because like someone said the devil will make sure you can’t enjoy any of those things. He will let those pharmacists that we have been discussing glimpse at heaven just to torture them.

By AllaboutME

June 17, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

…if Satan has a job Randy, it would always be slacking off, p** god off for not being on the job….

By Omar

June 17, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Your beliefs are your beliefs, but if you refuse to do your job, you should be fired.

By Ben

June 17, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

But if you look at the contrasting picture — all of the over-bearing christians and false prophets in heaven saying, “see, we told them, but NOOOOOO!” — I’d rather take my chances.

And if old Lucifer is teasing and not letting us touch and enjoy, it’s no different than what we have here. lol. It can’t be as bad as listening to these people all day long.

By Crystal

June 17, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

No, I don’t believe that people should play God. We are the ones in need, not God. And no, I don’t hear any kind of voices except on the telephone. Those usually sound more like telemarketers. I simply say that people develop their morals and values in different ways. What is right for one may be wrong for another and vice versa. Isn’t that obvious on these blogs?

As to being an American, I don’t mind telling the whole world how lucky I am to be one. Yep! Wave the flag! And have a nice weekend. (And stay sweet…)

By Ben

June 17, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

have a good weekend folks! I’m out!

By Maggie

June 17, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Well, this little debate soon will come to an end. Anybody change their mind since Monday? Anyone clearer on the issues? I’ve been reading since early in the week, just haven’t chimed in ‘til today. I do feel sorry for you poor tight-assed religious people. I don’t think we have them on the continent although they could be lurking in the shadows somewhere! You certainly would not be tolerated by most people there. I’m on a four week holiday visiting friends in the U.S. and Mexico. What good is living in a rich and powerful country if you never have time off to enjoy life and travel a bit?

By lozen

June 17, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Happy trails to you until we meet again!

By Bruce

June 17, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

See you all next week.

By Brian Curtis

June 17, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

Final point on your personal conscience:

Didn’t some religious businesspeople, a few decades back, claim that it was their moral right to refuse service to blacks? Because “nobody can force me to change my beliefs, ya know… and it would be wrong of the government to force me to do business with people I religiously hate.” Well, we all know THEY were dead wrong….

Screw your so-called “values,” you fundie wackos. Shut up and do your freakin’ JOB or look for employment elsewhere. Judgment is supposed to be up to God, not you.

By Akeya

June 17, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

My final thoughts:

Linda- You are completely repressed and you need serious therapy. Do you really live in a world in your head where women are not “supposed” to enjoy certain things?
I feel sorry for you because if you’re not just a man acting like a woman to goad the women on this forum, you may actually be a woman who believes the things that you write. You seem to have forgotten about all of the women contracting AIDS/HIV from their caddish husbands. Please get some help.