VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:07:20 08/12/08 Tue
Author: Caren
Subject: When pharmacists refuse to dispense medication, they should be fired
In reply to: Jeannine 's message, "OK, let's look at this again" on 07:52:57 07/26/08 Sat

The federal law is not harmless and it's all about cutting off lower income women's rights to health care.

The Paris Hiltons will always be able to fly to Canada or Europe to get what they "need". Poor women, not so much.

We have a law here in Illinois that requires pharmacists to dispense BC. You can't claim to have a moral problem with doing your job and keep your job. If you can't do your job, there has to be another pharmacist on staff who will do the job or you have to refer the patient to another pharmacy within a reasonable area (no good telling someone to go 100 miles). If you are the only one on staff, tough cookies. You do your job and give out the birth control.

If you are so ignorant as to believe either the pill or emergency contraception causes abortion instead of simply preventing ovulation, too damn bad. Believe away, but the facts are if there's no egg, there's no fertilization.

If you refuse to acknowledge the facts and continue to believe the pill kills, then you shouldn't apply for jobs where you will be required to do something you find morally reprehensible.

It's not like all women have lots of access to birth control anyway. Most counties in the US do not have abortion providers and most rural areas do not have a wide variety of pharmacies to choose from. If you live 100 miles from the next big city pharmacy and your local options refuse to dispense birth control b/c they think it's "evil", what are you supposed to do?

If you don't like black people, can you refuse to serve them or give them CPR? If you don't like gays, can you refuse to dispense their AIDS medication? Same thing, refusing to dispense medication b/c it violates your religious belief is NOT a protected right.

Christian Scientists don't work as phlebotomists. They don't take jobs as surgeons and then refuse to use transfusions b/c they violate their faiths.

Same thing goes for forced-birth proponents. If you don't believe anyone should use birth control, fine. Don't use it and refuse to take a job where you have to dispense it. But don't go taking a job where your job IS DISPENSING MEDICATION and then refuse to do it on moral grounds and then DEMAND THAT THE GOV'T PROTECT YOUR JOB.

Pharmacists have years of education and training. It is important for them to understand medication and to warn you if you are taking something and a new prescription may interfere. They do not have a right to interfere with any medical decisions you and your doctor make. They don't have the right to prescribe medication and they shouldn't interfere with a dispensing properly prescribed medication.

Pharmacists have been known to take the scrip for EC (Emergency contraception) and not only refuse to fill it, but refuse to return the scrip, requiring you to get back to your doctor and get a new prescription. Every MINUTE counts with EC as it prevents ovulation, so delaying it increases the risk of pregnancy. How's that for your rape victims? Thank God and my governor this is illegal in Illinois.

This new federal law would allow pro-forced-labor people to apply for jobs at Planned Parenthood, a group that dispenses birth control as well as provides prenatal care, PAP smears, and other health care for women and then refuse to do their jobs. They can refuse to dispense birth control b/c it violates their religious beliefs, and they can't be fired for refusing to do their jobs.

Think about it. People applying for a job they have no intention of doing, that they in fact plan on subverting, and then reaching for the federal government to "protect" them from the job they were hired to do.

Forced-birth proponents have been sending people to pharmacy schools for years trying to do just this...make it impossible for women to make responsible choices.

I'm glad that they are finally coming out in the open with their aversion to birth control. It's not about "protecting babies"; it's about controlling women's sex lives. You can't legitimately be against abortion and against birth control unless you intend to force everyone to hold to your faith and moral values.

If you really want to reduce abortions, you would be FULL BORE pro-contraception and sex education. You would want to prevent unwanted pregnancies, b/c if a woman wants to be pregnant, she's not likely to terminate.

And, yes, on another note, I think doctors should be required to learn D&C and D&X procedures and that if that forced-birth nurse doesn't want to assist in an abortion, especially a late-term abortion, she should not take a job as a nurse in an emergency room or obstetrics wing.

Women who have late term terminations do so b/c of health risks. Either their lives are at risk (placenta previa, placental abruption, pre-eclampsia, toxemia just off the top of my head things that can kill you) or the baby is unviable--anacephaly: no brain, severe brittle bone syndrome--can't survive even a c-section; a fetus that has ALREADY DIED. Should a woman be forced to carry the dead fetus and simply hope it doesn't decay to the point of killing her? That's barbaric.

I trust women to know what is best for them. If a woman and her doctor decide on a medication for any reason or purpose a pharmacist should have no right to interfere with the dispensing of it That's the job. If you don't like it, you are free to do something else. You shouldn't be free to interfere with someone else's religious and medical beliefs just b/c you have the power to hand out the drugs.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> Well said! -- scooter, 10:23:09 08/15/08 Fri [1]


[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> Thank you Caren! -- LAwoman, 13:15:22 08/16/08 Sat [1]


[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> Caren you should check you facts -- Minnie, 12:38:42 08/26/08 Tue [1]

there is no medical or legal issue with baby that have died in-utero. No woman in this country is being forced to carry a dead baby. And there are late-term abortions for things other than the health of the mother and child.


[ Edit | View ]


[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.