• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Topic: More news from the zealot front ...

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    More news from the zealot front ...

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...etogiveoutpill

    Druggists refuse to give out pill

    By Charisse Jones, USA TODAY

    For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control.

    "I was shocked," says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills. "Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician."

    Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions.

    Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.

    The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill.

    In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by the state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her. He would not refill it because of his religious views.

    Some advocates for women's reproductive rights are worried that such actions by pharmacists and legislatures are gaining momentum.

    The U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision in September that would block federal funds from local, state and federal authorities if they make health care workers perform, pay for or make referrals for abortions.

    "We have always understood that the battles about abortion were just the tip of a larger ideological iceberg, and that it's really birth control that they're after also," says Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) Federation of America.

    "The explosion in the number of legislative initiatives and the number of individuals who are just saying, 'We're not going to fill that prescription for you because we don't believe in it' is astonishing," she said.

    Pharmacists have moved to the front of the debate because of such drugs as the "morning-after" pill, which is emergency contraception that can prevent fertilization if taken within 120 hours of unprotected intercourse.

    While some pharmacists cite religious reasons for opposing birth control, others believe life begins with fertilization and see hormonal contraceptives, and the morning-after pill in particular, as capable of causing an abortion.

    "I refuse to dispense a drug with a significant mechanism to stop human life," says Karen Brauer, president of the 1,500-member Pharmacists for Life International. Brauer was fired in 1996 after she refused to refill a prescription for birth-control pills at a Kmart in the Cincinnati suburb of Township.

    Lacey, of North Richland Hills, Texas, filed a complaint with the Texas Board of Pharmacy after her prescription was refused in March. In February, another Texas pharmacist at an Eckerd drug store in Denton wouldn't give contraceptives to a woman who was said to be a rape victim.

    In the Madison case, pharmacist Neil Noesen, 30, after refusing to refill a birth-control prescription, did not transfer it to another pharmacist or return it to the woman. She was able to get her prescription refilled two days later at the same pharmacy, but she missed a pill because of the delay.

    She filed a complaint after the incident occurred in the summer of 2002 in Menomonie, Wis. Christopher Klein, spokesman for Wisconsin's Department of Regulation and Licensing, says the issue is that Noesen didn't transfer or return the prescription. A hearing was held in October. The most severe punishment would be revoking Noesen's pharmacist license, but Klein says that is unlikely.

    Susan Winckler, spokeswoman and staff counsel for the American Pharmacists Association, says it is rare that pharmacists refuse to fill a prescription for moral reasons. She says it is even less common for a pharmacist to refuse to provide a referral.

    "The reality is every one of those instances is one too many," Winckler says. "Our policy supports stepping away but not obstructing."

    In the 1970s, because of abortion and sterilization, some states adopted refusal clauses to allow certain health care professionals to opt out of providing those services. The issue re-emerged in the 1990s, says Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which researches reproductive issues.

    Sonfield says medical workers, insurers and employers increasingly want the right to refuse certain services because of medical developments, such as the "morning-after" pill, embryonic stem-cell research and assisted suicide.

    "The more health care items you have that people feel are controversial, some people are going to object and want to opt out of being a part of that," he says.

    In Wisconsin, a petition drive is underway to revive a proposed law that would protect pharmacists who refuse to prescribe drugs they believe could cause an abortion or be used for assisted suicide.

    "It just recognizes that pharmacists should not be forced to choose between their consciences and their livelihoods," says Matt Sande of Pro-Life Wisconsin. "They should not be compelled to become parties to abortion."

  2. #2

    Re: More news from the zealot front ...

    Okay, has this become nothing bur a Christian-bashing forum now?

    What if someone came by and started posting threads like, "More news from the faggot front..."?

    Let's all cool our jets now, shall we?

  3. #3

    Re: More news from the zealot front ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady Wright
    Okay, has this become nothing bur a Christian-bashing forum now?

    What if someone came by and started posting threads like, "More news from the faggot front..."?

    Let's all cool our jets now, shall we?
    So what are you saying, Brady? That Christians are zealots? As far as I'm concerned, this has nothing to do with Christianity. It's about the rights of people to get their god*mned prescription.

    You always talk about interference in our lives. Do you agree that someone with a legitimate prescription should be turned down based on moral beliefs?

    The next time you go to your supermarket for some pork, do you think its okay for the butcher to refuse to sell it to you because he's Jewish?

    Zealots, by the way, come in all shapes and forms, both religious and non.

  4. #4

    Re: More news from the zealot front ...

    Regarding the Jewish butcher, absolutely, I cannot force him to provide me something that violates his convictions. And nobody should force him.

    I don't agree with this person on the subject of birth control, but that aside, they have a right not to provide something that violates their beliefs. And if their employer doesn't like that, they can fire them.

    The key here is that I believe that people should be free to conduct their own lives as they see fit. If that means you can't buy a certain pill from vendor A, then go buy it from vendor B. By contrast, however, you think everyone should be FORCED to do things the way YOU think they should be done - even if that means stepping on people's religions.

  5. #5

    Re: More news from the zealot front ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady Wright
    Regarding the Jewish butcher, absolutely, I cannot force him to provide me something that violates his convictions. And nobody should force him.
    Lol. Is he violating his convictions if he sells it to a Christian? Give me a break.

    If nobody should force anything on anyone, then why oh why God am I forced to live through another 4 years of GW Bush?

  6. #6

    Re: More news from the zealot front ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady Wright
    The key here is that I believe that people should be free to conduct their own lives as they see fit. If that means you can't buy a certain pill from vendor A, then go buy it from vendor B. By contrast, however, you think everyone should be FORCED to do things the way YOU think they should be done - even if that means stepping on people's religions.
    Seems to me the guy shouldn't've become a pharmacist in the first place, if this was going to be a problem. Unless he became a pharmacist before the pill came out. in which case, it's about time for him to retire anyway.

    kinda shows a lack of foresight i think.

    /j
    John DeBorde

    Composer of Music for Film, TV and Interactive Media

  7. #7

    Re: More news from the zealot front ...

    - Layne

  8. #8

    Re: More news from the zealot front ...

    I'm a little lost on this one--I can understand,without sharing, an objection to the morning-after pill, but they're refusing to sell the pill? Would they refuse to sell simple prophylactics, too?

  9. #9

    Re: More news from the zealot front ...

    Who cares? We live in a free country do we not? If someone doesn't want to sell something, then go buy it from someone else who does! I'm sorry, but I don't see what's so Earth-shattering about this.

    Live and let live.

  10. #10

    Re: More news from the zealot front ...

    But it's a pharmacist's job to dispense pharmaceuticals. All of them. They have no right to decide for a patient, especially when there's a written doctor's prescription, whether that patient should receive the medication they're supposed to have.

    It's like if I worked at a toll booth, and a Toyota drove up and I told the driver, "I don't support Japanese cars..sorry.. back up and drive into another lane." It's absolutely absurd.

    Besides, what if the patient lives in some rural area and that's the only pharmacy close-by, and the next one is another 20 mins away? And this one that's 3 mins away refuses to dispense the medication? It's not just, at all.
    Sam Hulick
    Composer
    http://www.samhulick.com/

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •