This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
Nathanyal
Not to get to far OT, but it isn't asking if it is against your religion. Just if you find it morally wrong or not. I'm sure there are religious and non-religious people out that that agree that using birth control is wrong, or any type of drug for that matter.
But if I hired someone to sell something, and they don't do it for whatever reason, whether it be religious or otherwise, then I should have a right to fire them.
Post by
PTsICU
By your wording, I thought you wanted our personal opinions, not actual law. I would not argue laws, as I am not a legal scholar or pharmacist.
I believe they are held by state board decisions and the FDA. It is my understanding each state determines if they are allowed to deny medication due to moral stance.
Post by
yukonjack
Why must everything in off-topic come down to religion and homosexuality? For petes sake people, MOVE ON!
Agreed!
#39: Should pharmacists have to fill legal prescriptions for drugs they believe are morally wrong to use?
With the existence of drugs like the morning after pill and other contraceptives, should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions for drugs they believe are morally wrong to use?
Facepalm!
To answer the question, if the pharmacists is following company protocol then no, if the pharmacists owns the pharmacy and wants to refuse service to a customer for any reason then no, if the pharmacists refuses to fill a perscription for birth control without meeting the 2 previous requirements then yes he/she is forcing their beliefs on others and should not be doing so.
Post by
Magician22773
By your wording, I thought you wanted our personal opinions, not actual law. I would not argue laws, as I am not a legal scholar or pharmacist.
I believe they are held by state board decisions and the FDA. It is my understanding each state determines if they are allowed to deny medication due to moral stance.
It is fine to express your opinion on any of the topics here, but don't be surprised when that opinion is countered with facts, especially if the question has a lot of legal of factual precedence.
You can say "I think they should", and I could say "I think they shouldn't", but that doesn't make for much of a debate. All i am adding is "i think they shouldn't, and in fact, they don't have to"
After a little looking around, there are a few laws in place, or proposed, regarding this issue. Most of what I have found from a legal standpoint only addresses pharmacies that have the drugs in stock, but refuse to sell them. Nothing I have found shows any attempts to legally compell pharmacies to stock the drug (in fact Wal-Mart, which fills an estimated 25% of all prescriptions in the US, does not carry the Plan-B abortion pill).
One thing I came across, which I do have to say, even as an opposed to abortion as I am, that I think was wrong, is where a pharmacist not only refused to fill a script for Plan-B, but refused to transfer, or even return the script to the patient so they could have it filled elsewhere. Not only is this beyond unprofessional, but it seems it would violate the law, as the script was the patients property, and not the pharmacists. Several states, including mine, do have laws that require the pharmacy to either transfer the prescription, or return the hard script to the patient if they will not fill the order. Missouri also does require potential employees to disclose prior to employment if they have any moral or religious objections to filling any prescriptions. I think both of these laws are OK, even though I object to the abortion pill.
then yes he/she is forcing their beliefs on others and should not be doing so
And again with the "forcing beliefs" argument. Unless the pharmacist ties the patient up, and preaches to them for 9 months until they give birth, they are not "forcing" them to do anything but drive down the road to another pharmacy. If the patient presents the script to the pharmacist, and they simply say "Im sorry, but I can't fill that for you", that is not forcing anything. If the customer asks why, the pharmacist should simply say, " I am morally / religiously opposed to that medication", and send them on thier way. Nothing there is forcing a belief on anybody.
Believing that the phamacist should have to fill the script, regardless of their opposition.....now that is "forcing"
your
belief on
them.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
PTsICU
It is fine to express your opinion on any of the topics here,
but don't be surprised when that opinion is countered with facts, especially if the question has a lot of legal of factual precedence.
You can say "I think they should", and I could say "I think they shouldn't", but that doesn't make for much of a debate. All i am adding is "i think they shouldn't, and in fact, they don't have to"
I've not seen you post "facts". Otherwise you would have shown your work proving these "facts". How does one "counter" an opinion anyways? TBH, your post doesn't make much sense to me.
Your nurse analogy is not a good one, as doctors and nurses are held to different standards by law. (Similar to the anti-discrimiation laws that protect the pharmacy employee, laws also prevent medical professionals from refusing service in an emergency to anyone). However, hospitals and doctors are only required by law to treat a patient in an emergency, and then they can transfer the patient to a different facility, so refusal to administer AIDS drugs may or may not be considered "an emergency"
My statement never mentioned accepting a patient in a non-emergency. I said "Imagine a nurse refusing to give an HIV patient needed AIDS related drugs, because they disagree with the person being a drug abuser or homosexual." I think you aren't understanding my statement.
Post by
gamerunknown
It's a tangential issue, but I have no problem with requiring religious employers to provide comprehensive insurance policies. It's up to their employees to make use of the provisions or not.
As for the actual issue, if the contract between the employee or the pharmacy and their franchiser stipulates that they need to stock and sell certain drugs, then they'd be in breach of contract if they refused to do so. If they had a moral opposition, they shouldn't sign such contracts.
I think countries which limit the right of couples to cohabit are worse off than those that don't.
Post by
Adamsm
#39: Should pharmacists have to fill legal prescriptions for drugs they believe are morally wrong to use?
With the existence of drugs like the morning after pill and other contraceptives, should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions for drugs they believe are morally wrong to use?
If the pharmacist finds it morally wrong, then it's time for the customer to go to a different one so they don't have to have someone complaining, whining and *!@#$ing at them as they try to live their life.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Believing that the phamacist should have to fill the script, regardless of their opposition.....now that is "forcing"
your
belief on
them.
You're making too much sense, Magician.Yes they should, and there should be no form of recourse if they get fired for refusing. If you have a moral problem with giving out certain drugs, you shouldn't have gotten into a profession that involves it.
To those of you that are anti-union but think pharmacists should be allowed to do this without fear of losing their job: why should they be allowed to refuse to do their job when you think others shouldn't?
If a pharmacist took an oath to not cause harm, and the patient wants a medicine that will murder their unborn baby, and the government insists that the lady get the medicine, the pharmacist has an oath to uphold to NOT give that medicine, as killing people causes harm.
Post by
Adamsm
Which is why you go to another pharmacist.
Post by
Nathanyal
If a pharmacist took an oath to not cause harm, and the patient wants a medicine that will murder their unborn baby, and the government insists that the lady get the medicine, the pharmacist has an oath to uphold to NOT give that medicine, as killing people causes harm.
I don't see anything about not causing harm.
Maybe you're confusing it with the Hippocratic Oath
This line also seems to stick out:
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
Post by
gnomerdon
yes, they are under contract to do their work even if it's against their morals.
if they got a problem, let them start their own firm and not sell / package these types of drugs.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
FatalHeaven
Not all pharmacies are privately owned.
In my area, and AFAIK, in the US, the only pharmacy's that are not private businesses would be pharmacy's that are part of a Public Hospital. And, at least around here, there are no government owned hospitals other than the VA (Veteran Administration) Hospital.
Maybe I don't understand things, which could entirely be the case BUT since Wal-Mart, Walgreens and other stores of the like that have a pharmacy are publicly traded on the stock market, wouldn't that make them publicly owned?
Post by
Magician22773
If the pharmacist finds it morally wrong, then it's time for the customer to go to a different one so they don't have to have someone complaining, whining and *!@#$ing at them as they try to live their life.
Exactly.
At Magician22773 what in some cases may not seem a extreme hardship it actually is 1hr for some people with special needs is insane, friend that broke back that cant risk pregnancy without dying. Has back problems a hour long car ride can actually bring tears to her eyes it so painful. If any close calls happen extreme potholes emergency stops. That pain will last well over a week.
Your friend should look into mail-order prescriptions. Or, if they are a close enough friend, perhaps you could offer to pick up a prescription for her. Or a family member. I am not trying to downplay your friends condition, I am very sorry that she is in the position she is in. But there are many, many, other alternatives that would work for both parties involved.
To those of you that are anti-union but think pharmacists should be allowed to do this without fear of losing their job: why should they be allowed to refuse to do their job when you think others shouldn't?
I mentioned the law in Missouri. It requires potential pharmacists to disclose any opposition to dispensing medications based on religious objections prior to being hired. The law also then protects the employer if nothing was disclosed from future legal issues if they refuse to dispense these medications. Its a very simple, common sense approach, that protects both the employee and the employer.
Honestly I dont go to my neighbors house and ask them if they have accepted atheism into their hearts
I assume you know that one of the principles of Christianity is that we are to "bear witness" to others. The extent that some go to adhere to this is much different for individual people, and very different for some religions (i.e. Jehovah Witness' for example). The best advice I can give is just to be respectful. You don't have to believe in what they are saying to show common courtesy.
Now, the other things you mentioned that they have done to you.....those are wrong. Those are teh misguided religious types that make the rest of us look bad. The extreme example is the Westboro group. Those people are not witnessing, they are harrasing, or worse. You have every right to deal with them how you choose...although I would just suggest calling the cops, if that works where you live.
Just as there are respectful athesists in this forum, that will debate their postition without bashing Christians for their beliefs, there are also those that will intentionally disrespect or jab at us at every opportunity. It does not mean that all atheists are disrespectful, and the same applies to religious folks.
Maybe I don't understand things, which could entirely be the case BUT since Wal-Mart, Walgreens and other stores of the like that have a pharmacy are publicly traded on the stock market, wouldn't that make them publicly owned?
It makes them "Publicly Traded". Publicly Owned would be something like the VA Hospital, or I believe some larger cities still have "Public Hospitals". These are owned by, and funded by, tax dollars and the government.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#40: Are books becoming antiquated?
Personally, I don't think so. I know Tablets, IPADS, Kindles and other E-Readers are popular and will likely continue to be; but I enjoy reading a book more. There is something romantic about older books too. The way they were made, the way the smell, the way they feel in your hands. I do not think books will be completely replaced. Electronics simply can't surpass a good old bookshelf full of classics for me.
Post by
Atik
As someone who prints out fan-fiction to read them, I would say no.
I have trouble reading long stories on a screen, and can't stand e-books and such.
Post by
gnomerdon
if u are green, you would rather buy a book and read it off the ipad, kindle.
but in honesty, i always like a hard copy.
in skyrim, i gathered many books just to put on my book shelf, hundreds... :l
plus when reading from a screen, u get radiation into ur eyes. or not.
Post by
Levarus
if u are green, you would rather buy a book and read it off the ipad, kindle.
but in honesty, i always like a hard copy.
in skyrim, i gathered many books just to put on my book shelf, hundreds... :l
plus when reading from a screen, u get radiation into ur eyes. or not.
omfg i'm trying to read every book in the skyrim world atm... i hope more books come in upcoming expansion... cheers to dawnguard!
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.