Digg

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Federal Appeals Court Okays Injunction Protecting Pharmacist

lifenews.com — Olympia, WA (LifeNews.com) -- A federal appeals court has upheld an injunction in a lower court ruling that halted a new state requirement forcing pharmacists to fill prescriptions for all drugs. The mandate included drugs that would violate their moral or religious beliefs of pharmacists who don't want to be involved in abortions.

Bury

sertelt 128 days ago

20 diggs
digg it

MadKennyP, on 05/01/2008, -7/+2This guy chose the wrong career. I'm glad my doctor isn't opposed to prescribing penicillin.
- prolifemama, on 05/01/2008, -2/+8Are you suggesting that if someone wants to be a pharmacist, they can only do so if they leave their consciences at home?
  
  So much for freedom of choice. I guess it's just a one-way ratchet for proaborts, hmm?
- flip2trip, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3What has this got to do with penicillin?---I get so tired of these asinine comparisons of apples and oranges.
  - lydecker, on 05/02/2008, -4/+3"...a new state requirement forcing pharmacists to fill prescriptions for ALL drugs." Penicillin is a drug. This would force people with potential moral or religious beliefs against penicillin to prescribe them.
    - danielttt, on 05/03/2008, -1/+3I guess that's logical for someone who doesn't value the most innocent of human life. Beyond that, it's vacuous.
      - lydecker, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1How is that statement not logical for people who do value the most innocent of human life? Since female eggs are likely the most innocent form of human life...
      - kelly, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2We both know that eggs aren't life, both from a scientific perspective, nor from metaphysical or even philosophical perspective.
      - lydecker, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1From a scientific perspective, eggs are most certainly alive. I do not understand your definition of life.
      - kelly, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2When I reference "life", I'm speaking in terms of a living person, not living tissue.
      - lydecker, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1I do not understand your definition of person.
        
        Also, when you use a unique definition of life, you should state that.
      - kelly, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3"I do not understand your definition of person."
        
        Person (a life) is the coupling of egg and sperm.
        
        "Also, when you use a unique definition of life, you should state that."
        
        Not unique at all.
      - lydecker, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Please provide a source for your definition of person.
        
        Life is not defined as a living person by me, or by any dictionary i've found. Please define "unique."
      - kelly, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2"Life is not defined as a living person by me, or by any dictionary i've found."
        
        I'm saying that when I use the term "life" I'm meaning it to reference person.
        
        "Please define "unique.""
        
        "Being the only one of its kind."
        My reference to a general understanding of life is not the only one of its kind.
        
        If I had to be more specific, life equals living being. The way I was referencing it pertained to a living person.
        With that said, arguing over definitions when I believe you knew what I was talking about is simply an exercise in semantics and an effort to derail the conversation to avoid making a reply.
      - lydecker, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2So when YOU use the term life, it has that meaning. But not to all.
        
        Arguing over differences is the point in the abortion debate... because debate still exists! There is not a mutual understanding (clearly) and it is not possible for a few, of you or me, to define what is and isn't all of these definitions. That is why it is the mother's choice. Until we can clearly come to an acceptance of definitions, of facts, of science, et. all.
      - lydecker, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2It is not an attempt to derail the conversation, it is an attempt to IDENTIFY WHY the conversation exists. And, which reply are you referring to?
      - kelly, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2"So when YOU use the term life, it has that meaning. But not to all."
        
        Nor does it mean to none. More to the point, my choice of words does not negate my question so stop trying to take the subject off course for what I believe to be your inability to answer the question.
        
        We both know that eggs aren't life i.e. ****LIVING BEINGS****, both from a scientific perspective, nor from metaphysical or even philosophical perspective.
        
        "There is not a mutual understanding (clearly) and it is not possible for a few, of you or me, to define what is and isn't all of these definitions. That is why it is the mother's choice. Until we can clearly come to an acceptance of definitions, of facts, of science, et. all."
        
        So then if that's the case, we can summarize the debate as being one over a concern for the murder of innocent unborn children or the opportunity to keep from being inconvenienced for 9 months.
        
        If someone can't see that what I consider to be blatantly obvious, at least they would see the immensity of this supposedly unresolved issue and give credence to the greater ill of these two problems.
      - lydecker, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Since we haven't defined living beings, I'll go back to life -> living person -> living coupling of egg and sperm.
        
        Yes, we both know that eggs are not a living coupling of egg and sperm and that fertilized eggs are.
        
        We can also summarize the debate as being over a concern for the perpetual existence of a parasitic entity on a woman or the opportunity to remove that parasitic entity from the woman's own body before it changes her physical body, her work, her treatment by society, and her life as a whole.
        
        If someone can't see that what I consider to be blatantly obvious, at least they would see the immensity of this supposedly unresolved issue and give credence to the greater ill of these two problems.
      - kelly, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1"Since we haven't defined living beings, I'll go back to life -> living person -> living coupling of egg and sperm."
        
        Actually, a definition has been given. "A new individual human being begins at fertilization, when the sperm and ovum meet to form a single cell. "
        
        "We can also summarize the debate as being over a concern for the perpetual existence of a parasitic entity on a woman or the opportunity to remove that parasitic entity from the woman's own body before it changes her physical body, her work, her treatment by society, and her life as a whole."
        
        The debate is between pro life advocates and pro choice (death) advocates. The former's argument isn't summarized as you say, but rather as I did, a concern for the murder of innocent unborn children. The later party's argument is simply the opportunity to keep from being inconvenienced for 9 months. If you don't like THAT summary, then fill in your own.
        
        Regardless, If someone can't see that what I consider to be blatantly obvious, at least they would see the immensity of this supposedly unresolved issue and give credence to the greater ill of these two problems.
      - lydecker, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1A definition was given for living "being?" I missed it. If I accept that definition, then yes, we both know that eggs are not when the sperm and ovum meet to form a single cell, and that fertilized eggs are when the sperm and ovum meet to form a single cell.
        
        I see what you mean with this simplification of the pro-choice advocates position.
        
        We can summarize the debate as being over a concern for the inability of developing human organisms to survive when removed from a womb or the opportunity to remove a parasitic entity from the woman's own body before it changes her physical body, work, treatment by society, and life as a whole.
      - kelly, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1The definition of a living being is as such, "A new individual human being begins at fertilization, when the sperm and ovum meet to form a single cell. "
        
        Again, you are not representing the cause of the pro life advocates but instead reducing the human life to that of one which a pro choice (pro death) advocate might say. Again, you define the latter position, and I'll define the former.
        
        The debate is between pro life advocates and pro choice (death) advocates. The former's argument isn't summarized as you say, but rather as I did, a concern for the murder of innocent unborn children. The later party's argument is simply the opportunity to keep from being inconvenienced for 9 months. If you don't like THAT summary, then fill in your own.
        
        If someone can't see that what I consider to be blatantly obvious, at least they would see the immensity of this supposedly unresolved issue and give credence to the greater ill of these two problems.
      - lydecker, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Can't you move my definition for the latter in already? I've stated it multiple times. We can summarize the debate as being over a concern for the murder of innocent unborn children or the opportunity to remove a parasitic entity from the woman's own body before it changes her physical body, work, treatment by society, and life as a whole.
        
        Pro-life advocates are pro-life, as in they want that organism to have life, don't they? So isn't the problem that the organism isn't self sufficient that it can't survive on it's own? If it was able to survive on it's own, then it would survive an abortion? The problem is that the only way so far that this organism can sustain life is by hitching onto the body of a woman. If this weren't necessary, no one would be leaving them to die outside of a womb.
        
        And you keep saying pro death (a blatant misrepresentation), but I wonder if you actually think they want death. If women who obtain abortions were able to expunge their baby and have it live completely separate from them, do you think they would still want to kill it?
      - kelly, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1"Can't you move my definition for the latter in already?"
        
        I'd like you to do it because it brings you closer to the only conclusion that can be drawn which is that pro life (pro death) advocates would see the immensity of this supposedly unresolved issue and give credence to the greater ill of these two problems.
        
        "Pro-life advocates are pro-life, as in they want that organism to have life, don't they?"
        
        No, they want that human child which already has life to not be murdered.
        
        "So isn't the problem that the organism isn't self sufficient that it can't survive on it's own?"
        
        No, because a week old baby isn't self sufficient and can't survive on its own either yet nobody dares suggest (yet?) that a week old baby (for example) be killed off to keep the parents from having to deal with the "perpetual existence of a parasitic entity"
        
        "And you keep saying pro death (a blatant misrepresentation)"
        
        Is it? What else would you call the position of someone who wants to kill a baby fpr the sole purpose of not having to care for it?
        
        "I wonder if you actually think they want death."
        
        The must. They opted to murder the baby when an alternative option in the way of adoption is available.
        
        "If women who obtain abortions were able to expunge their baby and have it live completely separate from them, do you think they would still want to kill it?"
        
        If they regard the human child as mere tissue, why would they opt for this. Remember, these individuals don't regard it as killing a living being so knowledge of having one of your children running around without you there to raise it is not a guiltless endeavor. I've adopted a child and am working on adopting another. I know the pains these mothers go through in giving their babies up for adoption. By regarding these children as tissue allows themselves to rid themselves of guilt AND consequence.
        
        Those that would opt to expunge their baby and have it live completely separate from them but opt to kill the child without that option not available to them are the most hypocritical of all as it shows that they recognize that the child is something more than mere tissue yet opt to murder the baby anyways.
      - lydecker, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Biologically speaking, a week old baby is self sufficient. It can survive outside of being attached to it's mother's womb (I guess that's something you've been misunderstanding about what I meant by "self-suffiient".
        
        I see that you actually do think abortion is about wanting murder. Here's the rub, it's not. If they regarding the fertilized egg or embryo as living cells, then it isn't important to the mother what happens to those living cells. The organism gets removed from the mother, and then that's the end of what affects them. They are not at that point going to say "Oh, you can't keep it alive, you have to kill it."
        
        Those that would opt to expunge it AND prevent it from living as a separate entity from them don't make up anyone that I know. That's not pro-choice. If your whole argument has been solely against those people, who are for murder of that separate entity then okay. But pro-choice is not about murder of that separate entity. So stop saying what "they want" because you obviously aren't understanding, as I've tried to point out.
        
        We can summarize the debate as being over a concern for the murder of innocent unborn children or the opportunity to remove a parasitic entity from the woman's own body before it changes her physical body, work, treatment by society, and life as a whole. But very few people actually want to murder it, they just want it out of their body and out of their lives.
prolifemama, on 05/01/2008, -1/+10MadKennyP, are you suggesting that if someone wants to be a pharmacist, s/he can only do so if s/he leaves her/his conscience at home?
So much for freedom of choice. I guess it's just a one-way ratchet for proaborts, hmm?
prolifemama, on 05/01/2008, -1/+8MadKennyP, are you suggesting that if someone wants to be a pharmacist, they can only do so if they leave their consciences at home?

So much for freedom of choice. I guess it's just a one-way ratchet for proaborts, hmm?
lydecker, on 05/01/2008, -3/+2I think he's saying that a field of drugs and medicine can be a controversial place, and that it would have been wiser to choose a different field of work. Not that he needs to not have a conscience, but that if his conscience gets in the way of his job, that perhaps he would have been happier at a different job.

If you are a pharmacist, you cannot make decisions on what medications people have access to that fill their prescriptions.
- TYRONEBR549, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3It is not MadKennyP's place to tell someone what field of work they can and cannot chose.That be it's very nature is Communistic. If somebody chooses a field of work and exercises his personal beliefs that is freedom. To be forced to do something against your belief is wrong. If his business suffers because of it or prospers then that is the result. If you don't like this don't use his business. Simple.
  - lydecker, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1He didn't tell him what he can or cannot choose. I'm sure he agrees he has the freedom to choose a field of work. But he believes he chose wrong. I think having a die hard Creationist going into anthropology would be a wrong choice, but he has that choice.
    
    You cannot make decisions on what medications people have access to. If someone has a prescription, you should fill it or tell them how they can fill it.
    - TYRONEBR549, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1The pharmacist has not made a decision on what medications poeple can have access to. He has decided what medications he will provide.
shupy, on 05/01/2008, -4/+4Should you choose a career as a policeman if you feel it is morally wrong to carry and use a gun. Probably a bad choice. To choose that career and then claim your rights are being violated because carrying a gun is part of the job would not be tolerated. You'd get handed your walking papers pretty fast. If you have a problem filling a perscription, any perscription, you should re-think choosing the career path of a pharmacist. You have freedom of choice. Don't choose a career in a field where you can't do the job. Freedom of choice is freedom for you to make personal choices about your life. It is not about you having the right to impose your choices on someone else. (like the pharmacy customer)
- TYRONEBR549, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2"It is not about you having the right to impose your choices on someone else." It seems that you got it backwards. It is the customer imposing on the pharmacist not the other way around. Like just how is the pharmacist imposing his choice on someone else? The customer is free to leave and receive service somewhere else. It is the pharmacist's business and therefore right to run it as he sees fit. If he don't want to sell bubble gum who should 'Force" him? He should not have to sell anything that he finds in his judgment to be harmful or for any other reason. Nor should he have to give account of why either.That goes for anyone anywhere.
  - lydecker, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2It is the pharmacist imposing on the patients right to use drugs by denying them drugs. Let a patient know how they can fill their prescription.
    - TYRONEBR549, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2Go someplace else.
      - lydecker, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2Yes, but tell them where specifically. Not tell them to go pharmacy to pharmacy trying.
    - shupy, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3Sure, provided someplace else is available. Also provided the medication is not time sensitive.
  - eir574, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2@TYRONEBR549,
    
    You're right that a store can't be forced to sell bubble gum if the owner doesn't want to. But, the sale of medications is much more highly regulated. It's essentially a public health issue. If you want to be given a license to make money off of selling drugs, then you have to fulfill certain requirements. One of them is that you make available all commonly prescribed drugs (there's a little wiggle room there to prevent pharmacies from having to stock every drug known to man, though most can at least order rare medications if necessary). If a certain pharmacy in a major city didn't want to sell a certain drug, then that wouldn't be a big deal since patients could just go elsewhere. However, there are places where there might not be another pharmacy for many miles. And, not every insurance company will let patients go to any pharmacy, so the pharmacy in the next town might not even be an option.
    
    There are people who take birth control pills for purposes other than birth control (such as endometriosis, which can cause severe pain) who have been denied their medication by pharmacists who have an objection to birth control. In some cases, these pharmacists have even refused to help the patient find another pharmacy (not always easy in a small town). These people should not have to depend on the market sorting things out, as you suggest, to get their medications.
    - TYRONEBR549, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1There is other options such as mail order.
      - eir574, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4Not all insurance companies will allow people to use mail order pharmacies. I don't know why, but I've been on plans where it's not an option. Also, it takes some time to send in the forms and get the pills back. The first time someone is prescribed necessary medication, it's ideal to be able to get it right away.
        
        Mail in pharmacies also take away the option of talking to the pharmacist. I always want to get out of there as quickly as possible, but from the speed at which the line moves, it's clear that many people want to take advantage of that. My pharmacist always makes sure I understand my doctor's directions. Many people make mistakes, and the pharmacy is the last line of defense against that.
    - flip2trip, on 05/03/2008, -1/+3If the doctor is going to prescribe these drugs why can he give the patient a list of pharmacies who will fill it for them?
      - eir574, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4You missed the part where some areas don't have a whole bunch of pharmacies. Also, there's no mechanism for maintaining that list. If I were a doctor, do you want me to call pharmacies every couple of weeks to see if they've changed their minds? It happens -- pharmacies that used to fill all prescriptions stop doing so, perhaps when the sole pharmacist quits and is replaced with a new one.
        
        Also, there's a bigger issue. When we talk about pharmacists not wanting to fill prescriptions, we're usually talking about birth control pills, the morning after pill, etc. The more general issue, though, is whether the pharmacist should be allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions based on his or her moral convictions. What if the only pharmacist in a town's only pharmacy wakes up one day and decides that he believes that obese patients should not be prescribed blood pressure and cholesterol medication? There are many people who think that these medications take away personal responsibility from those who are overweight by mitigating the medical consequences, and that obese people increase health costs for all of us. Now we've got a much bigger problem. You may say it's ridiculous to think that would happen, but there are many people who feel that way, and right now pharmacists are really just testing the waters. We haven't quite figured out as a society whether they should be allowed to do things like that. If we pass laws that basically say you can stop dispensing any medication you want if you have some sort of moral objection, then things like this can happen.
      - shupy, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3Why should a doctor be required to keep a list of pharmacists? Pharmacists are licensed by the state and part of that licensing is that they agree to make prescribed medication available.
      - flip2trip, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1@eir574---I admit I am getting frustrated with these straw man arguments. Comparing BC and morning after pills to blood pressure and cholesterol medication is a stretch to say the least. While your argument makes sense on the surface, obese patients who are prescribed these medications are given these to prolong their life so they have a chance to take responsibility for their weight issues.
        
        I'm sorry but I cannot make the leap it takes to go from murder in the womb and comparing that to blood pressure/cholesterol medication. (And yes, I used the word murder on purpose)
        @shupy--It's strange that you use the term "medication" when you are talking about a pill that basically commits a 1st term termination of a baby's life.
        
        I use these term "murder" to make a point as to where most people of faith stand on this issue. I do this not to inflame a response, but rather to convey how ardently we believe that life is precious from inception.
      - avaugha4, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Is every sperm sacred to you flip2tip?
      - eir574, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3@flip2trip:
        
        Somehow I didn't see your response earlier. I could have sworn that I visited this page again this morning. Oh, well. My guess is that you won't be back and that you therefore will go on thinking that I've made a ridiculous comparison without understanding why I made the comparison in the first place. So, in case you do come back, here it is:
        
        I know blood pressure medication and morning after pills are fundamentally different. The point is that if we enact a policy that allows pharmacist to refuse to fill prescriptions when they believe that doing so conflicts with their morals, then that's a situation we could have to deal with. It's not a straw man argument. It's a hypothetical situation that could indeed occur. You've explained why a pharmacist shouldn't feel that giving blood pressure medication to an obese person is immoral, but that doesn't mean that a pharmacist couldn't nonetheless think that it is.
        
        Of course, the morning after pill isn't always just a convenience. There are some people whose lives are threatened by pregnancy. If they somehow find themselves in a situation where they need a morning after pill , that's a time sensitive issue, and they should have it immediately. It shouldn't be for a pharmacist to decide if they have to risk their lives. (While I'm willing to be that you'd say that such people just shouldn't have sex, not all sex is voluntary, and not all rape victims go to the hospital.)
        
        Just FYI, the morning after pill is thought to be most effective when it's taken at a point in a woman's cycle at which it can operate by preventing ovulation. In that case, it's acting exactly like a contraceptive, and that's why it's frequently referred to as an emergency contraceptive.
      - flip2trip, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1@eir574---I understand what you are saying, and yes I do see how it could be a slippery slope as it could open the door to a myriad of problems unrelated to abortion; however, I'm willing to risk the slide in order to protect the rights of a pharmacist to not be a party to abortion. Perhaps there is another solution which would allow pharmacists who object to the drug's purpose to be taken "out of the loop" so to speak--I'm open to any suggestions that don't involve forcing the pharmacist to participate.
        @avaugha4---No, I don't believe every sperm is sacred. I believe I stated from inception is where what I refer to as life begins and yes, that is sacred.
      - eir574, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2"Perhaps there is another solution which would allow pharmacists who object to the drug's purpose to be taken "out of the loop" so to speak"
        
        If the pharmacist is willing to call over another pharmacist (assuming there is one), then that's fine with me. Some pharmacists are willing to do that, but there have been cases where some have considered providing instructions on how to get the prescription filled to be too close to giving out the medication themselves. And, of course, the biggest problem is still with rural areas that may have only one pharmacy with one pharmacist.
        
        I realized last night that I had sort of been in a situation where a pharmacist objected to dispensing medication that had been prescribed to me by a doctor. I'd been having trouble with chronic pain, and a pain clinic at a university hospital prescribed a very low dose of methadone. I took the prescription to the school's student health center. The pharmacist looked at it, handed it back tome, and said, "We're not a methadone clinic." Fortunately, I had other options. I'm still not sure if that pharmacy stocks methadone (or could at least order it), as I can imagine that not all pharmacies are licensed to handle controlled substances. Still, it was a response based on the pharmacist's moral convictions, and he offered me no help in finding an alternative way to get my prescription filled (which, in a student health center, might be tricky since many students don't have transportation). TYRONE's suggestion of using a mail in pharmacy wouldn't have worked, either, since they typically only handle prescriptions that can be written for three months at a time. Controlled substances require a new prescription on secure paper every month.
      - flip2trip, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Eir574 said: "Still, it was a response based on the pharmacist's moral convictions, and he offered me no help in finding an alternative way to get my prescription filled (which, in a student health center, might be tricky since many students don't have transportation)."
        I think you make an assumption it was based on his morals--unless he told you that--perhaps he was too stupid to understand, and if that is the case you may have been lucky NOT to have him fill it.
sepierce, on 05/02/2008, -3/+7Apparently you should only choose to be a pharmacist if you are willing to sell the method of executing the most innocent of people. To equate a policeman carrying a gun to a pharmacist being forced to sell baby killing drugs is pretty stupid. The policeman's gun, if used as it is intended, is not a tool to kill innocent people. Abortion drugs, if used as intended, are tools to kill innocent people.
- shupy, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2Science and law does not recognize a fertilized egg as a person. The morning after pill, is used as intended does not kill a human being, it prevents the implantation of an egg. You are calling it killing, that is your opinion, that is not the law.
  - rockanne, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1FERTILIZED is the key. Little human person.
    - shupy, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1Uh no, fertilized is not the key. 50% of fertilized eggs do not implant. No law and no religion, icluding the bible recognizes a fertilized egg as a human.
- shupy, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1No, fertilized is not the key. 50 percent of fertilized eggs do not implant, they simply pass through the body. Fertilized is not recognized by science or even the bible as a little human person. Judaic law and the Christian bible recognize a pregnancy as being a life at the point of "quickening". That takes place 3 months after conception.
- shupy, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1Another point: A gun is designed for a single reason, it can wound and kill. A gun is not a noise maker or an empty threat. Used properly, it will wound or kill. There is not a single professional charged with carrying a weapon that does not recognize that you do not draw a weapon if you are not willing to use it. If you use it, you may kill, and you may kill someone who is innocent.
  It is not for the policeman to determine guilt or innocence. But if they cannot face the possibility that their actions may result in death to an innocent, they have no business carrying a gun.
KJeffV, on 05/02/2008, -3/+5Both ru-487 AND the "Plan B" pills are relatively recent inventions. I'm gonna go out on a logical limb here and guess that the WA state pharmacies were IN BUSINESS BEFORE these abortifaciant/preg preventers were on the market, thus relieving them of the burden of carrying them if religious/moral stances prevent dispensing.

It's ironic that those who cry, "You MUST dispense!" are among the 1st to stand behind Moslem cab drivers who refuse to haul potential clientele who have dogs/booze w/them. Which came 1st in this country: cab riders w/dogs/booze or Moslem cabbies?
- shupy, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2I have never stood behind Muslim cab drivers refusing to haul clients with dogs or booze on them.
  - KJeffV, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1WHAT!? There might be an exception to a generalization? I am astonished.
- shupy, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Pharmacists are licensed by the state and bound to provide a public service and uphold the laws of the state.
  Those who cry "you must dispense" are pointing out that this is a public service, this is a positioned licensed by the state, and the oath requires acting in accordance with the laws of the state.
  
  If a pharmacist can't do that, they should not seek state licensing.
  - KJeffV, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1I stand by my original statement, precisely f/the reason mentioned: Changing technologies/products are not necessarily "grandfathered." And, I'll wager that oath & license you're relying upon doesn't cover these kinds of issues.
flip2trip, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3Using the flawed logic of some of the people in here we should force all doctors to perform abortions. I find it interesting the abortionists want their "rights" enforced to the exclusion of everyone else's. A pharmacy is no different than any other business. The convenience store owner who is opposed to alcohol isn't forced to sell beer and I'm glad to see the courts see this as a decision to be settled by the individual pharmacists.
- shupy, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2No, but it is reasonable to require physicians to refer patients to practioners who will perform the procedures they need.
  It is my right to receive medicine that is legal and is perscribed for me. It is not your "right" to take that away. If a pharmacist does not believe in pain medication, do they have the right to refuse to sell it? If a doctor does not believe in blood transfusions, and there are religious groups that do not believe in blood transfusions, do they have the right to deny it to you?
  
  Be careful what you wish for. If you take away my right to receive a medication today, someone may very well take the same right from you tomorrow.
  
  And I can hear your flawed logic now--"but that's different" because it isn't abortion.
  - flip2trip, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2Your using straw-man logic on an issue that people have very real concerns about, the taking of a human life, and it IS different even though you think it's ok to just kill babies in the womb, some of us don't.
    And just how is the abortion pill medicine? What does it cure? Definition of medicine: An agent, such as a drug, used to treat disease or injury. So I guess the unborn are now a disease?
    - shupy, on 05/03/2008, -1/+3You call an unimplanted egg a person. It is not recognized as a person in law, or even in most religions.
      There are those, who for medical reasons should not conceive. It is not for you, or a pharmacist to determine what an individual's medical needs are.
      - flip2trip, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I'm talking about a FERTILIZED egg. What's an "unimplanted" egg? You talking about an embryo? How did you get off subject?
  - danielttt, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2Shuppy, Why don't you just go to a phamacy that believes in killing the unborn? Avoid anyone and anything pro life. That'll learn them.
    - shupy, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2I do my best to avoid them. But when they insist on blocking an individuals access to legally prescribed medication or medical services, they become unavoidable.
      If you study these cases, they are eventually overturned for the simple reason that pharmacists are licensed by the state. The medication in question is time sensitive. There are medical reasons why some individuals should not conceive, those reasons are between a woman and her doctor. It is not for the pharmacist or the pro life lobby to interfere with those medical decisions.
      Pharmacies perform a public service and are licensed by the state. If they cannot perform those services as outlined by law, they need to loose their licensing.
      - danielttt, on 05/04/2008, -1/+2But Shupy, It's not medicine. It's a drug but it's certainly not intended to cure a disease...It's to kill a human....Hitler would have loved you.
      - flip2trip, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2@danielttt--that's what I keep trying to tell these people, it's NOT medicine. It's a drug just like Potassium Chloride--which I would hope a pharmacist would have a moral objection to filling as well.
shupy, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2All people want the right to receive legally prescribed medication. If your "right" requires that you remove my "right" it ceases to be your right. Your right is to choose for yourself, not for anyone else.

There are religious groups who do not approve of pain medication. Should they be allowed to refuse to fill your perscription? There are religious groups that do not believe in blood transfusions, should a doctor from that group be allowed to deny you a blood transfusion if you need it?

Be careful what you wish for. If it is your "right" to keep something from someone that is legal and that their doctor has said is necessary, it will soon be someone else's "right" to keep something from you.
InRussetShadows, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1The left is vacuous on this issue, as always; as soon as someone chooses a profession, the left regards that person as an agent of the state -- they lose their freedom of religion, of speech, of free association, you name it. That is why you'll see leftists arguing that pharmacists must dispense these drugs, that doctors must perform abortions, that fast food places cannot sell fatty foods, and so on. It is very interesting that they never apply such logic to themselves, because either they do not work or their job is to tell others what to do (administrators and politicians).
- shupy, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1When you sink to referring to a mythical "left" and make assumptions as to what "they" believe and do, you make it clear that you have ceased to reason and are resorting to talking points and regurgitating dogma. I am not a member of the "left", I believe fast food places can sell whatever they want. I also believe that those who are licensed by the state to perform a public service are obligated to perform that service within the law. If they can't they need to loose their licensing. No one is forced to do anything, but if you agree to perform a service, you do it. Don't enter military service and claim you can't do it, don't take an oath as a policemen if you can't handle using a gun. Don't become a state licensed pharmacist and then claim that you will only dispense those items you deem necessary. You are not charged with making those decisions.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Federal Appeals Court Okays Injunction Protecting Pharmacist

Login or register to add a comment