Texas pharmacist refuses pill for rape victim

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher
Sorry

No your NOT!

[Japher]

I wonder if any Christian Scientists are pharmacist's?
Talk about conflict of interest.

It would be like a Texan who "doesn't fancy" NASCAR or PBR

[Imran Siddiqui]

A pharmacist shouldn't with hold treatment prescribed by a doctor. If they don't have the meds, then they wouldn't be with holding it.

That's what I meant by a private pharmacy. I bet if this guy was in business for himself, he wouldn't have those pills.

[Japher]

good point... I wonder if he'd carry condoms?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Pharmacists are licensed professionals in all states, and are subject to the professional conduct and ethical requirements of their state licensing boards.

What do the professional conduct requirements say about having to provide all drugs? Is a pharmacist required to have on hand all drugs that could possibly be asked for? Can he or she pick and choose which drugs to carry because of limited funds and space?

They're state requirements, so check all 50 states and DC, but availability in inventory isn't the issue. It's refusing to fill a prescription that the pharmacist had the ability to fill. There are circumstances where pharmacists are expected to do that, for example, when the pharmacist is aware of a drug interaction or reaction issue of which the prescribing physician may be unaware.

[MrFun]

nope -- condoms are evil according to fundies

[Zylka]

Meanwhile my pleas to ease the pain with a totally legitimate oxymorphone prescription which was hastily drawn up on a napkin go unnoticed. You could even say that bigot pharmacist stuck them up his own ass

[Sava]

omg... u sicken me kenobi

I hope god exists so he can set your ass straight when you get there

raped and then refused birth-control...

what is this? the dark ages?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's refusing to fill a prescription that the pharmacist had the ability to fill.

Which wouldn't be an issue if he was a private pharmacist who did not carry those drugs, like my example stated.

[DaShi]

Women are for making babies.

[Ben Kenobi]

I HOPE that's what he meant, and isn't using the "woman's convenience" line about abortion to extend to a rape victim's attempt to prevent pregnancy in the first place.

Yes, I mean your first example and not the second. I'm not an ogre after all.

Is such a requirement constitutional, because it effectively bars Catholics in particular from working as pharmacists without a violation to their conscience.

[Nubclear]

What if the person had cancer? Would he find it morally objectionable to interfere with the Lords work?
Perhaps he should begin trying to speed it up?

"The Lord God has told me....he told me! He's taking you into his Kindgom of heaven...Yes....Oh don't cry....It'll all be over soon....And you'll be with the lord! The Lord God, the supreme creator!!! Yes....yes......"

[DaShi]

Good, Catholics shouldn't do something they think is immoral. But if other folks want to it, I say, let 'em.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Is such a requirement constitutional, because it effectively bars Catholics in particular from working as pharmacists without a violation to their conscience.

There is no specific right to employment, let alone to employment in any chosen profession. If one has an objection to part of a job requirement, the choice is simple - don't do the job, or do the job someplace else where the job requirements fit your views.

The freedom of conscience issue is a bit of a stretch. Consider this:

The pharmacist isn't the prescribing physician.

He doesn't know whether the victim has a fertilized egg or not (not playing semantics, but the whole point of the morning after pill is to block implantation, which is the objectively testable determination of whether she is pregnant).

So he's neither the direct actor in terminating a pregnancy, nor does he know whether there even is conception.

If you go that far, why not object to even working in a store which sells contraceptives? Even to married couples, if you're Catholic, as humanae vitae and subsequent statements by the church take the clear position that sex must be "open to the transmission of life" - so even barrier methods which do not allow post fertilization "issues" are technically prohibited (although a huge number of Catholics disregard that little detail of church doctrine)

If your conscience prohibits you from participating indirectly in a specific type of contraceptive prescription when you have no idea whether there is a fertilized egg / conception, how does it permit you to even work in that pharmacy at all?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, I mean your first example and not the second. I'm not an ogre after all.

You may not think so, but you are. At least in my eyes. This is the latest in a string of threads recently that has reduced my opinion of you to about a hair above my opinion of Bods (aka Park Avenue).

At least Fez was reactionary in an amusing way.

-Arrian