In other news: Anti-Abortion People Are Still Fucking Horrible People

[Kim]

Link (http://www.care2.com/causes/health-policy/blog/when-conscious-clauses-can-kill/)

Planned Parenthood officials said the complaint states that the pharmacist inquired if the patient needed the drug for post-abortion care. The nurse refused to answer the question based on confidentiality of health information.

According to Planned Parenthood, the pharmacist then stated that if the nurse practitioner did not disclose that information, she would not fill the prescription. The nurse alleged that the pharmacist hung up when asked for a referral to another pharmacy that would fill the prescription.

There are many issues with the pharmacist asking for the reason behind the prescription. The biggest, of course, is that if the nurse practitioner answered she would have been violating HIPAA Privacy Act, setting herself up for anything from lawsuit to firing or both.

But even if it were ok to divulge the information, then what? The pharmacist made it clear that she would only fill the order if it was for a woman who was having excessive bleeding due to childbirth, not abortion. By refusing to fill the prescription, she was in essence saying that a woman who had an abortion deserves to die for her actions.

Conscience clauses have been created to allow those with particular religious beliefs to avoid doing actions that are against their moral codes. And although I disagree with the practice, I can at least understand refusing to fill an order for birth control pills or the morning after pill on the grounds that you do not wish to be complicit in what you see as the "murder of a new life."

But refusing a drug that stops bleeding? The abortion has already happened. The "murder" has already taken place. And by not allowing the patient to have medicine to control her bleeding afterward, and refusing to transfer the prescription so it could be filled in a timely manner, that pharmacist was not only not "saving a life" but could have caused the death of a woman in the process.

How is that "pro-life?"

Fuck conscience clauses. Seriously. If you aren't comfortable with the responsibilities of your job, then don't take the fucking job. "Pro-lifers" continue to pove that they aren't actually pro-life. They're just in favor of prioritizing the life of a fetus over the life of any woman, because, you know, "it's a woman's job to have children."

[Professor Smarmiarty]

But if left alive she would just abort more babies. It's a netgain of a life. Sounds pro-life to me!

[Mr.Bookworm]

They still administer the Hippocratic Oath in most med schools, don't they? SPOILER! They do.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

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.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Maybe the pharmacist added in his own "but it's okay to let em' bleed to death if I don't like them" clause.

[Thadius]

The most you can hope for in this instance is that the pharmacist will one day get comeuppance for her actions. I am in no way saying she deserves to die, but I hope she has to deal with similar bullshit as she dished out.

[Archbio]

Maybe they follow the original Hippocratic Oath?

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract:

To hold him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to be a partner in life with him, and to fulfill his needs when required; to look upon his offspring as equals to my own siblings, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or contract; and that by the set rules, lectures, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to students bound by this contract and having sworn this Oath to the law of medicine, but to no others.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.

Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.

Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.

So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and violate it, may the opposite be my fate.

Translated by Michael North, National Library of Medicine, 2002.

Emphasis mine. Goddamn Apollo worshippers.

[Hanuman]

People are getting so carebear, soon we won't be able to remove tapeworms.

[Loyal]

Maybe they follow the original Hippocratic Oath?



Emphasis mine. Goddamn Apollo worshippers.

From what I'm reading from the article, the abortion already happened (and that's if it was an abortion at all - the nurse did not disclose the details) and the nurse was asking for something regarding the aftereffects. Therefore the pharmacist wasn't following any definition of the Oath whatsoever.

So yeah, fuck 'em.

[RobinStarwing]

I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
I will give my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;
I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity;
The health of my patient will be my first consideration;
I will respect the secrets which are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honor and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
My colleagues will be my brothers;
I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient;
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from its beginning even under threat and I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity;
I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honor.

I like this version best; Declaration of Geneva of the World Medical Association. Heard it on an episode of Grey's Anatomy (my mom watches and I found this episode to be very good).

The Healer's job is not to judge. It is to heal and to help.

[Krylo]

I don't think pharmacists take the hippocratic oath.

I think they have their own oath. Apothecary's oath, or oath of the pharmacist or some such business.

I don't think it's mandatory, however.

This is still stupid and ridiculous, either way. You don't become a soldier and then bitch when they ask you to shoot someone. You don't become a fire fighter then bitch when they ask you to run into a burning building. You don't become a boxer and bitch when they tell you to punch someone. You shouldn't become a doctor or pharmacist and then bitch when they ask you to perform medical procedures or fill prescriptions.

It's your job. Get over it or get out.

[h4x.m4g3]

You don't become a soldier and then bitch when they ask you to shoot someone.
While I agree with the point of your post, I will note that this snippet is in fact untrue. It's called being a conscientious objector, and according to wikipedia was defined or at least broadened by the UN. Wikipedia Link for more exact definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector)

I could accept morality clauses like this if invoking them also required recommending or referencing another doctor/pharmacist who could fulfill the objectionable order in a timely enough manner to avoid harm ti the patient. Although that seems contrary to the reason these clauses exists and I'm sure there are those who would recommend others who they knew would/could not fulfill the order while claiming ignorance to avoid legal repercussions.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

If you're a conscientious objector you're not a soldier.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

While I agree with the point of your post, I will note that this snippet is in fact untrue. It's called being a conscientious objector, and according to wikipedia was defined or at least broadened by the UN. Wikipedia Link for more exact definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector)

I could accept morality clauses like this if invoking them also required recommending or referencing another doctor/pharmacist who could fulfill the objectionable order in a timely enough manner to avoid harm ti the patient. Although that seems contrary to the reason these clauses exists and I'm sure there are those who would recommend others who they knew would/could not fulfill the order while claiming ignorance to avoid legal repercussions.

Isn't that the thing that allows Pacifists to decline combat involved military service?

[krogothwolf]

Why is birth control being refused?

[Krylo]

If you're a conscientious objector you're not a soldier.

Isn't that the thing that allows Pacifists to decline combat involved military service?

Both of these posts are right.

Conscientious objectors aren't soldiers.

[h4x.m4g3]

I was more referring to the condition that person's previously engaged in military activities (presuming soldiers included) could become conscientious objectors. Although I suppose at that point you are no longer a soldier.

It was a bit of early morning skimming/research failure on my part, because I was familiar with the term but not its exact definition.

[Hatake Kakashi]

...It's called being a conscientious objector...

I could accept morality clauses like this if invoking them also required recommending or referencing another doctor/pharmacist who could fulfill the objectionable order in a timely enough manner to avoid harm ti the patient.

I don't know about other places, but that is, in fact the case and required by law in my state. The pharmacies I worked in had done so, in fact. Main reason I got out was because they didn't include that clause when it came to our recently enacted "Death With Dignity" law that turned out to be just a way for insurance companies to fuck their customers.

[tacticslion]

I know I've already made enough of a jerk of myself to remove most credibility on this issue, but...

"Pro-lifers" continue to pove that they aren't actually pro-life. They're just in favor of prioritizing the life of a fetus over the life of any woman, because, you know, "it's a woman's job to have children."

Thanks for the broad, over-arching crass generalizations that continue to make meaningful dialogue between two disagreeing parties possible!

The thing that happened here? It's wrong. While I might understand the pharmacists point - she probably finds assisting in any way with the process horrid - what she has now is a patient in need of care. Did that patient make a bad decision (a decision which may have gotten her into this situation)? Yes. But so does a gang-member who gets themselves shot or stabbed in a fight they've started. So does a person who attains an STD by sleeping around. So do many other people who make mistakes (some who then learn to regret them later). In all cases those who've made mistakes need to be treated first as people, and only later should the dialogue line be opened.

I really don't know the full situation. From reading the article, it does seem that the nurse should have had more than one pharmacist she could call on, but I don't know if that could really happen. While I think the pharmacist is wrong in refusing care, I do understand her desire not to be a part of it.

Why is birth control being refused?

If you meant from the article, it's because certain kinds of birth control could potentially lead to auto-abortions of newly minted fetuses. Birth control treats the body as if it's pregnant, and then makes it go into a menstrual cycle of flushing the egg. If that egg is fertilized, then the fetus*, considered by many pro-lifers to already be a child - is, of course, aborted. It's similar (and related) to the argument against harvesting stem cells: don't create a new child (inception) only to murder (harvest) it to gain the stem cells for what might possibly serve as a cure one day for something we think. The idea is that it's potential murder (or, if you prefer, manslaughter) for convenience. Most groups that have this view (especially religious groups) feel that all life, no matter how small, is sacred, and that a fertilized egg/fetus is, in fact, a life. Catholics are the most stringent on birth-control, although many Protestants find similar reasons against it. Even so, my wife - a Catholic - is allowed birth control for medical reasons by her priest who is a very strong anti-abortionist (it should be noted, this is not the morning-after pill, which I have not heard of any exceptions to).

That's what's at the crux of the matter - when people's lives/bodies are at stake, what's the moral boundary? What lines do you cross or not? I think the pharmacist didn't do her job. While I can understand her (potential) reasons, I disagree with the action. That said, I can't judge the full situation, I wasn't there - I can only judge what I see. From that (admittedly limited) angle, she appears to be in the wrong, and should have reprisal. Even the Bible says to either not violate the laws of men, or be ready to pay the cost for having done so (in the case of morally objectionable laws, we are charged with simply paying the cost with dignity - we can object to the law as wrong, so long as we also willingly pay the cost).

*I'm not entirely brushed up on my medical terminology any more - I don't recall if a newly fertilized egg can actually be called a fetus, an embryo, or only a blastocyst. Anyone here know? I apologize if I used the wrong term.

Almost-insta-edit - ADDENDUM: again, there is a disconnect between what our own laws/society say about things - some treat the unborn as children to be protected, others as property to be recycled. Ironically, the latter - abortion-centric views - harken more closely to the same 'barbaric' practices as ancient Jews who treated children at all stages (until adult-hood and independence) as property to be dealt with as such*. Really, this can't be settled by law. It probably couldn't even be settled by SCIENCE! (tm), as it deals heavily with whether or not there is a soul, what the nature of a "soul" (if it exists) is, and what/how to treat it. You currently have a bunch of people on one side saying "they're living beings, don't murder them" while a bunch of people on the other side are saying "I'd like to have the right to cosmetic surgery on my own body, thank you very much, and who needs an appendix anyway". It's a complete disconnect in the very most basic view of what a fetus is - are they people, or is it just a growing, internal naturally-recurring parasite that might one day become a person and can validly be removed for health/personal reasons?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I like how one side of the "debate" you presented was all abou protecting "people's" rights but then the other side was all about looking good.

[Osterbaum]

You don't become a soldier and then bitch when they ask you to shoot someone.
Seriously?

e: 'Cause, you know, I'm pretty sure it would be within my rights to bitch and complain all I wanted if I was told to kill another human being.

[Krylo]

Seriously?Seriously

e: 'Cause, you know, I'm pretty sure it would be within my rights to bitch and complain all I wanted if I was told to kill another human being.I don't know about Finland, but I know in most countries joining the military is entirely voluntary. Even in places that have 'mandatory military service' they usually have an opt out program where you can just go and do public service for the same period of time instead--if Finland isn't like this, then I guess you DO have a right to complain.

However, when you, voluntarily, sign up for the military, ESPECIALLY a position in the military colloquial known as a soldier (read: Not MP, not a tech, not a sailor, but an infantry soldier), wherein you know full well that shooting people is part of the job description and one of the tasks that you are going to be expected to complete should it be necessary, you have 0 right to complain.

If you couldn't handle it, you shouldn't have taken the job.

In the same manner, you know going into being a pharmacist that filling prescriptions for birth control, even morning after/induced miscarriage pills is a duty that will be expected of you. You know you'll be expected to prescribe medication to help prepare women for abortions, and to help them heal after.

This is not the kind of thing they keep hidden away from everyone and just drop on you as soon as you've got a job as a pharmacist. It's a well known and expected duty and responsibility of a person holding the pharmacist title.

I don't care how much you love filling prescriptions for everything else, or how much you hate filling prescriptions for these things. It was in the job description. You still took the job. You do it.

And if you have a strong moral objection to doing the job? Well then you quit, or, better yet, you don't take it in the first place.

If you don't believe in killing people under any circumstances, don't be a soldier.

If you don't believe in Catholicism, don't be a Catholic priest.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't be a doctor or a pharmacist.

[Osterbaum]

In Finland one can do civil-service instead of military service.

If you couldn't handle it, you shouldn't have taken the job.
I can't help but find this comment pretty close minded, in lack of a better term.

e: I get what you mean. And the military is the perfect example of 'just following orders' and not thinking too much about it. But even so, I can't accept just forgetting everything you believe in, everything you might make of your current situation and just plain losing the right to complain and contradict what is asked of you.

e2: I think my political and social opinions are known well enough on these forums that everyone understands I'm not defending this particular pharmacist, but just to make sure there you have it.

[Krylo]

But even so, I can't accept just forgetting everything you believe in, everything you might make of your current situation and just plain losing the right to complain and contradict what is asked of you.

Then don't take a job where it will be asked of you.

Simple, eh?

[Osterbaum]

So just let the job be as it is, like there would never be any need or room for change of any sort? Just do as you're told, and everything will be fine. After all, those who come up with the rules for any given job propably know best.

[Krylo]

So just let the job be as it is, like there would never be any need or room for change of any sort?Not necessarily.

Just don't say you'll do it and then not do it.

You can still protest the job. You can still march on capitol hill with big signs decrying birth control or wars or abortion or whatever else.

But if you're going to be carrying those signs, don't take jobs where you'll be expected to do the things on those signs.

Edit: The problem with taking the job and trying to change it from the inside is that you're going to do more harm than good when people are expecting you to do something and then you don't.

For instance, it'd be really shitty for Finland if it was getting invaded and suddenly half of its armed forces said, "Well, here's the thing..."

And it was really shitty for this woman who was bleeding and needed medication to keep herself alive and the pharmacist she expected to handle it said, "Well, here's the thing..."

And it was really shitty for the couple who already had four kids and couldn't afford another when the condom broke and the pharmacist they expected to give them the morning after pill they were prescribed said, "Well, here's the thing..."

[Hatake Kakashi]

I'll state again, the pharmacist in this case was right, and he was wrong.

In the point that he was right, yes, he was within his right to refuse to dispense the medication.

BUT.

From the sounds of the article, he's from an area similar to mine, which means that while he had the right to not dispense based upon his beliefs, he also had a legal and moral obligation to refer the patient to another pharmacist who would fill the prescription, and that's where he failed. That's why the law exists: patients in need of certain types of care can still find it.

I don't usually disagree with you, Krylo, but there are reasons that the medical field is so specialized. Many people who enter the medical professions will never deal with an abortion case simply because they've chosen a different practice. Brain surgeons don't deal with it. Pediatrics don't deal with it. Podiatrists don't deal with it. Etc. and so on. The majority of medical professionals who deal with abortion issues are OBGYNs, possibly Gynecologists (but the latter is very rare). If a woman seeking an abortion goes to see her general practitioner, it is his/her obligation to refer her to someone who can/will handle the counseling and procedures.

While pharmacies do not have the ability to compartmentalize as a hospital would, their practitioners still have the right to object under the law. However, when they do this, the law states that they also must refer the patient to someone who will administer the needed care in the case. The law protects both the moral rights of the practitioner and the rights of the patient in this way.

Ugh... the older I get, the less I like climbing on that soapbox... carry on.

[Krylo]

I don't usually disagree with you, Krylo, but there are reasons that the medical field is so specialized. Many people who enter the medical professions will never deal with an abortion case simply because they've chosen a different practice. Brain surgeons don't deal with it. Pediatrics don't deal with it. Podiatrists don't deal with it. Etc. and so on. The majority of medical professionals who deal with abortion issues are OBGYNs, possibly Gynecologists (but the latter is very rare). If a woman seeking an abortion goes to see her general practitioner, it is his/her obligation to refer her to someone who can/will handle the counseling and procedures.Yeah I know all this.

But like I didn't bother specifying infantry as soldier until questioned on it, I wasn't going to bother specifying 'Ob/Gyn' or whatever for abortion.

Edit: And really the abortion thing isn't as big a deal, because there's a pretty decently sized time window in which to get an abortion, so going to the next state or whatever is a thing that can be planned and carried out if it becomes necessary, as opposed to medications to staunch internal bleeding and emergency morning after pills which are the kind of thing you sort of need right now.

While pharmacies do not have the ability to compartmentalize as a hospital would, their practitioners still have the right to object under the law. However, when they do this, the law states that they also must refer the patient to someone who will administer the needed care in the case. The law protects both the moral rights of the practitioner and the rights of the patient in this way.The law also says the government has the right to listen to everything you say without a warrant and throw you in a hole for suspected terrorism without trial for as long as they like.

The law isn't always right.

What happens if this is in the bible belt, or just generally in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, and the nearest pharmacy that will prescribe an emergency morning after pill, or a pill to staunch internal bleeding after an abortion is in the next state? Or even just two three hours away?

[Osterbaum]

For instance, it'd be really shitty for Finland if it was getting invaded and suddenly half of its armed forces said, "Well, here's the thing..."
Heh, actually many threaten to do just that. "If there's ever an actual war here, you'll find me on some tropical island if you'll find me at all." That's all just talk mostly though.

[Hatake Kakashi]

The law also says the government has the right to listen to everything you say and throw you in a hole for suspected terrorism without trial for as long as they like.

The law isn't always right.

Unfortunately, the law is indeed, not perfect, but it seems to me we're comparing apples and oranges here. The laws regarding pharmaceutical care were crafted specifically with conscientious objection vs. patient need in mind.

What happens if this is in the bible belt and the nearest pharmacy that will prescribe an emergency morning after pill, or a pill to staunch internal bleeding after an abortion is in the next state?

Although I fear you may be overgeneralizing about those of us who study the Bible and its teachings (not all of us are as intolerant as so many people on these and other forums would like to believe), I will state that cases like these are precisely why most medical professionals carry samples of medications to dispense in immediate need in case a problem would develop due to the ethos of a certain pharmacy which may or may not have gained any notoriety because of situations like this. As long as the drug is not a CII or CIII rating, which most drugs concerning bleeding and abortive medicine are not, it is perfectly legal for the practitioners to carry and dispense on the spot. Seems to me that there was a failure on the Abortion clinic's office as well.

[Krylo]

Unfortunately, the law is indeed, not perfect, but it seems to me we're comparing apples and oranges here.
It is apples to oranges, but the proof of concept remains. Arguing that 'this is the law' holds no water when your opposition is arguing that the law is wrong.

Edit: Much as, I suspect, arguing that abortions are totally legal wouldn't change the pharmacists' collective minds in this case.

The laws regarding pharmaceutical care were crafted specifically with conscientious objection vs. patient need in mind.Conscientious objection is a term used for people to avoid being drafted into military service during draft times.

It is not a term used for people that are in the military and are just told, "Well, it's ok, you're a special snowflake. You don't have to go to war."

If they want to conscientiously object then they need to get out of the field they are in, and go object to it on the steps of capitol hill.

If we were allowed to choose only to do the duties of our jobs which we find palatable to our own sensitivities, they wouldn't call it work. They'd call it paid recreation time. Infantry has to kill people, the only way around it is to leave the infantry. Catholic priests have to preach catholicism, the only way around it is to leave the priest hood. Used car salesmen have to lie, the only way around it is to stop being a used car salesman. Pharmacists have to prescribe medicine to patients in need, the only way around it should be to stop being a pharmacist.

You don't get to take any other job and say you're ok with every part of it EXCEPT THAT ONE, and have everyone go, "Oh, ok."

Although I fear you may be overgeneralizing about those of us who study the Bible and its teachings (not all of us are as intolerant as so many people on these and other forums would like to believe),The Bible Belt refers to an area of the US in the deep south known not only for an adherence to the Christian faith (a thing which is, in no way, anomalous amongst the populace of the country) but also known for having very conservative political views and very fundamentalist and intolerant views on their faith. And, further, is often made of many small communities with large areas between them.

It wasn't meant to be a generalization of people of faith, but rather an illustration of an area within the US where such a problem could, indeed, occur.



I will state that cases like these are precisely why most medical professionals carry samples of medications to dispense in immediate need in case a problem would develop due to the ethos of a certain pharmacy which may or may not have gained any notoriety because of situations like this. As long as the drug is not a CII or CIII rating, which most drugs concerning bleeding and abortive medicine are not, it is perfectly legal for the practitioners to carry and dispense on the spot. Seems to me that there was a failure on the Abortion clinic's office as well.Maybe there was a failure in the abortion clinic's office as well. Maybe internal bleeding afterward from complications is rare enough that they didn't feel they needed it. Maybe the pharmacist has no right to know why a patient needs a pill in the first place and, if a pill has more uses than just after abortion care, they should file it rather than leaping to the conclusion that it is for something they disagree with and risk the life of a woman in the process?

Further, birth control pills have many uses that have absolutely nothing to do with birth control, like controlling the severity of menstrual cycles, controlling hormonal problems, and controlling other medical issues that can crop up in during particularly severe periods in some women with preexisting conditions.

It's not the pharmacist's business whether a woman needs birth control because she has hormonal issues or because she doesn't want to get pregnant.

It's their job to measure out the medication and give it to a patient as has been subscribed by a doctor. It is not their job to question the doctor's judgment or the morality or the ethics of the patient.

[Marc v4.0]

It's not the pharmacist's business whether a woman needs birth control because she has hormonal issues or because she doesn't want to get pregnant.

It's their job to measure out the medication and give it to a patient as has been subscribed by a doctor. It is not their job to question the doctor's judgment or the morality or the ethics of the patient.

This is important enough that it needs to be repeated

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Wiat a second, next time my supervisors ask me to type a proposal can I conscientiousally object? Computers offend my morals because they put typewriter manufacturers and typists out of business.
And print salesmans. And paper makers.

Or shit I'm going to join the military, get paid but not do anything because everytime they ask me to do something I'm going to object. This is the perfect system.

Also, I've trained pharmacy students. No way should those dudes be allowed to make decisions about other people. Barely a sober one among them and can barely push correctly or count pills beyond about 4.

[Eltargrim]

It's their job to measure out the medication and give it to a patient as has been subscribed by a doctor. It is not their job to question the doctor's judgment or the morality or the ethics of the patient.

To a degree I disagree with this, but only inasmuch that the pharmacist has the duty to question the judgment of the doctor if the doctor is prescribing something that will cause the patient harm, ie prescribing a penicillin antibiotic to a patient who is allergic to penicillin. And when I mean harm, I don't mean ethically or morally, I mean physically. I have no argument with the rest of your statement.

[Hatake Kakashi]

It is apples to oranges, but the proof of concept remains. Arguing that 'this is the law' holds no water when your opposition is arguing that the law is wrong.

Arguing simply that because one law is wrong, it makes the other laws wrong because they're all laws... eh, I may be misreading you, but I don't see the logic there.

Conscientious objection is a term used for people to avoid being drafted into military service during draft times.

I'll concede that point, as at the moment, I don't know precisely what the provision allowing for objection by medical practitioners is called. But it served my purpose, as you seem to be aware that such a provision does exist, and I need to comment on it no longer.

Pharmacists have to prescribe medicine to patients in need, the only way around it should be to stop being a pharmacist.

Actually, in most areas that I'm familiar with, the task of prescribing lies strictly with the doctor or physician's aide, pharmacists aren't usually allowed to prescribe, though they may make substitutions in cases of generics, or recommendations or refusals based upon a patient's previous medical history, but I digress.

It wasn't meant to be a generalization of people of faith, but rather an illustration of an area within the US where such a problem could, indeed, occur.

Conceded. Just wanted you to remember that not all of us are so strict.

Maybe there was a failure on the abortion clinic's office as well.

We find a common ground. Excellent!

Maybe internal bleeding afterward from complications is rare enough that they didn't feel they needed it.

This kind of stupidity is purely the fault of the clinic. In the field of medicine, it is the responsibility of the practitioner to be prepared for any complication that may arise, no matter how minute the chance. If they are not prepared to deal with problems that arise, rather than hoping that the nearest pharmacy will not object to the treatment, they should not have performed the procedure at all until they were prepared. Most hospitals would not dream of discharging a patient who was bleeding internally until they administered the necessary treatments to make it stop. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

The case that builds itself upon rarity is no case at all. It basically puts the value of human life on a percentage, a hope that they won't fuck up, or that the percentage is so small that it's worth disregarding the treatment, and admittedly, it does happen (which is why Merck decided to stop manufacturing the antivenin for Coral Snake bites). It's stupid, and it means that people will die. If anything, measures need to be taken upon the institutions that play the bean-counting game and play with the survivability of their patients.

Maybe the pharmacist has no right to know why a patient needs a pill in the first place and, if a pill has more uses than just after abortion care, they should file it rather than leaping to the conclusion that it is for something they disagree with and risk the life of a woman in the process?

This is where you would be incorrect, sir. HIPAA laws do not protect the privacy of a patient from other medical professionals who administer care to them. The reason for this is that while some practitioners will see certain aspects of a patient's case, others will see other sides of the chart. It is impossible to know absolutely everything about the patient, which is why it is not uncommon for a doctor to be called by the pharmacist with the pharmacist saying "WhoawhoawhoaWHOA! What the hell were you thinking?! This patient has had [insert allergy/medication/reaction here] previously according to our charts. If we administer [new prescription] to her, she'll be dead in a day or two."

Also, any pharmacist worth his/her salt will know exactly what the prescription is for by the SIG, or the way that it's labeled. An unusually high dose of certain birth control medications, for example, is commonly used for an abortive process. It's the pharmacist's job to know the potentials of each medicine in his/her pantries, and their varying off-label uses. I can guarantee you that any such pharmacist would be able to spot a prescription like that a mile away.

It's not the pharmacist's business whether a woman needs birth control because she has hormonal issues or because she doesn't want to get pregnant.

It is absolutely their business. The health of the patient is just as much the responsibility of an administering pharmacist as it is a physician's. If it were not, any time a patient died because of a medication dispensed that went wrong, the pharmacist could simply point a finger at the one who wrote the prescription and say, "Not my fault! HE told me to!" It just doesn't work that way.

It's their job to measure out the medication and give it to a patient as has been subscribed by a doctor. It is not their job to question the doctor's judgment or the morality or the ethics of the patient.

Again, the maintenance of a patient's well-being is as much a pharmacist's as a physician's. And it is absolutely their job to question the doctor's judgment. Doctors are humans, too, and they are very, very fallible. Often, the doctor does not know nearly as much about the medicine they prescribe as the pharmacist does (that's their job), so a pharmacist is there to ensure the doctor doesn't fuck their patient over with a poor choice.

The whole problem is a huge gray area in medicine law that isn't likely to be solved in our time, but that's unfortunately the way it is. A law doesn't necessarily make things right, but until the law is changed, there is little that can (legally) be done about it. The best way to address the problem, I would think, would be to address the lawmakers and see what can be done to make things... more right.

[Krylo]

Arguing simply that because one law is wrong, it makes the other laws wrong because they're all laws... eh, I may be misreading you, but I don't see the logic there.
You are.

The point is my argument has always been that this law is wrong.

Thus telling me that the law says it's ok means literally nothing to me.


I'll concede that point, as at the moment, I don't know precisely what the provision allowing for objection by medical practitioners is called. But it served my purpose, as you seem to be aware that such a provision does exist, and I need to comment on it no longer.And I disagree with said provision.



Actually, in most areas that I'm familiar with, the task of prescribing lies strictly with the doctor or physician's aide, pharmacists aren't usually allowed to prescribe, though they may make substitutions in cases of generics, or recommendations or refusals based upon a patient's previous medical history, but I digress.Prescribe was the wrong word. Meant administer. My bad.



This kind of stupidity is purely the fault of the clinic. In the field of medicine, it is the responsibility of the practitioner to be prepared for any complication that may arise, no matter how minute the chance. If they are not prepared to deal with problems that arise, rather than hoping that the nearest pharmacy will not object to the treatment, they should not have performed the procedure at all until they were prepared. Most hospitals would not dream of discharging a patient who was bleeding internally until they administered the necessary treatments to make it stop. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

The case that builds itself upon rarity is no case at all. It basically puts the value of human life on a percentage, a hope that they won't fuck up, or that the percentage is so small that it's worth disregarding the treatment, and admittedly, it does happen (which is why Merck decided to stop manufacturing the antivenin for Coral Snake bites). It's stupid, and it means that people will die. If anything, measures need to be taken upon the institutions that play the bean-counting game and play with the survivability of their patients.So the clinic made a mistake and now the patient has to pay for it with a potentially life threatening problem because the pharmacist feels it would be immoral to save her life?

The point was that, 'ok, they made a mistake. Maybe they had reasons, maybe they weren't the best reasons, this still, in no way, excuses the pharmacist to compound that mistake, regardless of whether the pharmacist thinks compounding that mistake is the right and moral choice'.



This is where you would be incorrect, sir. HIPAA laws do not protect the privacy of a patient from other medical professionals who administer care to them.I didn't say legally, did I?

You're all caught up in the legality.

Here, let me break this down: Legal is not the same as ethical or moral. It's merely legal. Lots of things are legal that maybe shouldn't be. Some of those things are loopholes created by making something ELSE legal that has to be, like the rest of this paragraph.

That still doesn't make them ethical.

The pharmacist may need to know if the patient has an allergy or what unintended effects the drug may have on a patient's system. They do not, however, need to know WHY the drug is prescribed, directly. Which is to say they may need to know that the patient's uterus is bleeding and that it is bleeding due to foreign objects and not disease or other drugs. They do not need to know the foreign object was a tool used in an abortion. Maybe they can put two and two together. That doesn't matter. It's not their job to put two and two together and to make a moral and ethical decision as to whether or not the patient should have undergone said treatment and whether they deserve the benefit of life saving medication after the fact. It's merely their job to help protect the patient's life.

The reason for this is that while some practitioners will see certain aspects of a patient's case, others will see other sides of the chart. It is impossible to know absolutely everything about the patient, which is why it is not uncommon for a doctor to be called by the pharmacist with the pharmacist saying "WhoawhoawhoaWHOA! What the hell were you thinking?! This patient has had [insert allergy/medication/reaction here] previously according to our charts. If we administer [new prescription] to her, she'll be dead in a day or two."And none of that pertains at all to birth control or anti-bleeding medications that someone is not allergic to.

Also, any pharmacist worth his/her salt will know exactly what the prescription is for by the SIG, or the way that it's labeled. An unusually high dose of certain birth control medications, for example, is commonly used for an abortive process. It's the pharmacist's job to know the potentials of each medicine in his/her pantries, and their varying off-label uses. I can guarantee you that any such pharmacist would be able to spot a prescription like that a mile away.And it's not their business to do so.

It's their business to administer it.



It is absolutely their business. The health of the patient is just as much the responsibility of an administering pharmacist as it is a physician's. If it were not, any time a patient died because of a medication dispensed that went wrong, the pharmacist could simply point a finger at the one who wrote the prescription and say, "Not my fault! HE told me to!" It just doesn't work that way.And yet it's none of their business if the patient wants to not have children. We aren't paying them to be moral leaders. We are paying them to provide a needed service to their community which their morals are getting in the way of.



The whole problem is a huge gray area in medicine law that isn't likely to be solved in our time, but that's unfortunately the way it is. A law doesn't necessarily make things right, but until the law is changed, there is little that can (legally) be done about it. The best way to address the problem, I would think, would be to address the lawmakers and see what can be done to make things... more right.This is actually not at all gray.

It's pretty simple and black and white.

You don't want to do the job? Don't take it.

[Hatake Kakashi]

You are.

For misreading you, I do apologize and accept my wrong. Sorry about that.

Prescribe was the wrong word. Meant administer. My bad.

No worries. It's clarified.

So the clinic made a mistake and now the patient has to pay for it with a potentially life threatening problem because the pharmacist feels it would be immoral to save her life?

The point was that, 'ok, they made a mistake. Maybe they had reasons, maybe they weren't the best reasons, this still, in no way, excuses the pharmacist to compound that mistake, regardless of whether the pharmacist thinks compounding that mistake is the right and moral choice'.

I didn't say legally, did I?

You're all caught up in the legality.

Here, let me break this down: Legal is not the same as ethical or moral. It's merely legal. Lots of things are legal that maybe shouldn't be. Some of those things are loopholes created by making something ELSE legal that has to be, like the rest of this paragraph.

That still doesn't make them ethical.

While the law cannot necessarily dictate ethics in a given field (it's literally impossible for it to do so), it does provide for the administering professionals to make choices based upon their individual ethos. Often, that's why the Hippocratic Oath isn't necessarily taken by all in the field anymore. Several practitioners do not believe in its provisions, while others do.

The pharmacist may need to know if the patient has an allergy or what unintended effects the drug may have on a patient's system. They do not, however, need to know WHY the drug is prescribed, directly.

Are you saying a pharmacist should blindly dole out medication on a physician's say-so without knowing the state of a patient's care? That's a very dangerous field you're walking into... there's a reason Pharmacists now need to go through so much intensive training in many different medications... it is their responsibility to know the effects of a medication and its uses, on-label or not, and to correct the prescribing professional where needed. Otherwise, we'd have no need of pharmacists... a pharmacy technician would fill the role you're saying they have nicely.

And none of that pertains at all to birth control or anti-bleeding medications that someone is not allergic to.

I'll give you that, I was simply giving examples that show a Pharmacist has more to handle on their plate than you're giving them credit for.

And it's not their business to do so.

It's their business to administer it.

With that sort of statement, one could recommend that Pharmacies simply be cut out of the whole program. Let the Physician dispense the meds on their own. The resulting death-tallies would tell the tale of why this is not the case.

This is actually not at all gray.

It's pretty simple and black and white.

You don't want to do the job? Don't take it.

And the pharmacist didn't take the job. He didn't fill the prescription.

At this point, my friend, I will shake hands with you and agree to disagree. I wouldn't want this messy topic to come between us, ne?

Besides, there's more important things at hand. Like breakfast.

[Krylo]

Are you saying a pharmacist should blindly dole out medication on a physician's say-so without knowing the state of a patient's care? That's a very dangerous field you're walking into... there's a reason Pharmacists now need to go through so much intensive training in many different medications... it is their responsibility to know the effects of a medication and its uses, on-label or not, and to correct the prescribing professional where needed. Otherwise, we'd have no need of pharmacists... a pharmacy technician would fill the role you're saying they have nicely.I think you missed my edit, which isn't you're fault. You're just too quick for me and my re-reading and realizing that is going to to sound like something I didn't mean, and then editing (and hey, it did).

Anyway, here's the edit: The pharmacist may need to know if the patient has an allergy or what unintended effects the drug may have on a patient's system. They do not, however, need to know WHY the drug is prescribed, directly. Which is to say they may need to know that the patient's uterus is bleeding and that it is bleeding due to foreign objects and not disease or other drugs. They do not need to know the foreign object was a tool used in an abortion. Maybe they can put two and two together. That doesn't matter. It's not their job to put two and two together and to make a moral and ethical decision as to whether or not the patient should have undergone said treatment and whether they deserve the benefit of life saving medication after the fact. It's merely their job to help protect the patient's life.

Though I will come back to technicians in a minute...

And the pharmacist didn't take the job. He didn't fill the prescription.But he did, when he took the job as a pharmacist. Dispensing medication, EVEN THAT MEDICATION, is in his job description. It was in his job description when he took the job. Just because he doesn't think it's right to dispense anti-bleeding medication to someone after an abortion, that doesn't mean that it's not still his job to do so.

And you know? This ethical thing?

It doesn't even really apply to pharmacists.

Ok, yes, they can put two and two together and figure out this is doing that or that is doing this or whatever, but have you been to many pharmacies? Because I've been to a lot due to older family members.

You know how many times a pharmacist has actually spoken to me/the person receiving the medication?

Exactly 0 times. Well, maybe there was once I don't remember, but strange outliers aren't the point.

The point is that it's the doctor or the the surgeon who sits down with a patient and discusses the choice to have an abortion or to go on birth control or whatever other thing with them. It's the doctor who has the full view of the patient's psychology, situation in life, and health, both physical and mental. At best the pharmacist might catch a silly mistake like an unwanted drug interaction or an allergy that the doctor missed.

They do not, however, know about the patient.

They don't know what effects having a child could have on the patient. They don't know whether the patient is even sexually active. They don't know if the patient was hit by a car that caused a miscarriage, or had an abortion. And without knowing these things, they can't make informed ethical decisions. They aren't equipped to do so without knowing these things.

And moreover? They don't need to know. All they need to know is that physical trauma caused a tearing of the uteral wall resulting in internal bleeding worse than was initially suspected and that the patient now needs medication to treat it. All they need to know is that the patient is a female aged 20 years, 160 pounds, 5'8", and requires hormonal balancing pills often, but not always, used for birth control.

The specifics of treatment are none of their business. The ethics of treatment are none of their business. They aren't equipped to deal with the ethics of the treatment without spending the same amount of time with the patient that the doctor does. Or, hell, ANY amount of time beyond what it takes, on the rare occasion they don't have their technicians handle it, to hand the patient a bag with their medication in it and ring them up.

It sounds trite, but there was some medical drama or another that was on where I overheard this little snippet: "You aren't treating a medical chart. You're treating a human being." And, as trite and cliche as that sounds, it's true*. A pharmacist, however, is only equipped to treat a medical chart. They aren't equipped to treat a human being.

The way you're talking we may as well just get rid of doctors and let pharmacists decide what treatments people receive. The rising death tolls that would result from that are clear enough reason why we don't.

*Probably the only true thing that has ever been said in a medical drama

Edit: At this point, my friend, I will shake hands with you and agree to disagree. I wouldn't want this messy topic to come between us, ne?

But I like to argue.

And I don't see this messy topic creating any long standing issues. Not so long as we remain good sports about it.

[Hatake Kakashi]

I think you missed my edit, which isn't you're fault. You're just too quick for me and my re-reading and realizing that is going to to sound like something I didn't mean, and then editing (and hey, it did).

No worries. We're both humans, right? I make mistakes too.

But he did, when he took the job as a pharmacist. Dispensing medication, EVEN THAT MEDICATION, is in his job description. It was in his job description when he took the job. Just because he doesn't think it's right to dispense anti-bleeding medication to someone after an abortion, that doesn't mean that it's not still his job to do so.

The job description also lists the clause where he may reject prescriptions based upon ethics. It's legally required. However, I do admit the pharmacist's fault in failure to dispense the anti-bleeding medication because the procedure was already completed. It's not his call to make in regards to the bleeding. Had the abortion not already happened, however, he would be well within his rights to refuse.

And you know? This ethical thing?

It doesn't even really apply to pharmacists.

It does. They're medical professionals, too, even if their primary expertise lies with the chemical rather than the physical.

Ok, yes, they can put two and two together and figure out this is doing that or that is doing this or whatever, but have you been to many pharmacies? Because I've been to a lot due to older family members.

I've worked in Pharmacies for years. I've pretty much spent the last decade of my life behind the counter... and then going home to sleep and shower.

You know how many times a pharmacist has actually spoken to me/the person receiving the medication?

If I'm not misreading you here, the pharmacist absolutely cannot counsel you in regards to another patient's medication, even if the medication is for someone you're related to. HIPAA law strictly forbids it. However, if you are, in fact, the patient in question, the pharmacist is required by law to offer counseling to you before you receive the medication, and in many states, required to counsel you before you receive your first dose. Where, roughly, do you live? The laws may be different where you are, but here in Washington, what I've said is the case.

The point is that it's the doctor or the the surgeon who sits down with a patient and discusses the choice to have an abortion or to go on birth control or whatever other thing with them. It's the doctor who has the full view of the patient's psychology, situation in life, and health, both physical and mental. At best the pharmacist might catch a silly mistake like an unwanted drug interaction or an allergy that the doctor missed.

They do not, however, know about the patient.

If that really were the case, the pharmacist would have no place at all in today's medicine. However, between an ever-increasing amount of patients, increasingly diverse fields of medicine, and restrictions being placed upon doctors and pharmacies by insurance companies (who are the real villains, honestly... they have no business dictating who a patient should or should not see, but somehow they get to in the interest in making money), a doctor's actual time with a patient is more limited than ever. Someone has to be there to pick up the slack, and the law mandates that this is where the pharmacist comes in.

They don't know what effects having a child could have on the patient.

Actually, that's required study.

And moreover? They don't need to know. All they need to know is that physical trauma caused a tearing of the uteral wall resulting in internal bleeding worse than was initially suspected and that the patient now needs medication to treat it. All they need to know is that the patient is a female aged 20 years, 160 pounds, 5'8", and requires hormonal balancing pills often, but not always, used for birth control.

Again, because the procedure was already completed, you are right in this case... the Pharmacist at this point has no legal leg to stand on in his objections. I have indeed reviewed the details of the case and won't argue against this at this point.

The specifics of treatment are none of their business.

How can you justify that against the true scope of where a pharmacist's duties actually lie?

The ethics of treatment are none of their business.

Again, there's a reason some take the oath, and some do not. The law cannot dictate ethics, it can only make provisions for it.

They aren't equipped to deal with the ethics of the treatment without spending the same amount of time with the patient that the doctor does.

In my experience, this often exceeds the amount of time that a doctor spends with the patient. Again, this might just be because I'm from an area where we actually give a damn about our patients.

Or, hell, ANY amount of time beyond what it takes, on the rare occasion they don't have their technicians handle it, to hand the patient a bag with their medication in it and ring them up.

Ahh, I see now where much of your argument comes from... you appear to have dealt primarily with retail pharmacies, which, after spending time in a few, became the bane of my existence. A retail pharmacy does not deal nearly as much with a patient as a true professional pharmacy does. A professional pharmacy is in constant contact with physicians, refining treatment for the patient until the best course can be decided. It is the primary example of what medical teamwork should be, rather than the mockery that retail chains have made it become.

The way you're talking we may as well just get rid of doctors and let pharmacists decide what treatments people receive. The rising death tolls that would result from that are clear enough reason why we don't.

Absolutely not! The physician has a very specific role in regards to patient care, that of diagnostic, treatment dictation, and emergency care. The physician is absolutely key to the care a patient receives, but this does not make them infallible. What I am saying is that the common view of a pharmacist being a simple pill-pusher is incorrect: the pharmacist, due to his/her specialized knowledge, holds as much esteem in the field as a doctor (which is why many areas will no longer provide less than a doctorate program in the field). Each professional in the field carries with them a certain amount of burden in the care of a patient, and all are entitled to the knowledge and rights, thereof.


But I like to argue.

And I don't see this messy topic creating any long standing issues. Not so long as we remain good sports about it.

So I see.

I don't mind, I just want to make sure I'm not fucking up something between someone I've seen as a long-standing ally in the forums, even if I don't always agree with you.

[Krylo]

required to counsel you before you receive your first dose. Where, roughly, do you live? The laws may be different where you are, but here in Washington, what I've said is the case.MN, and I believe there has been some counsel over the phone for family members now that you mention it, but it's never more than a couple of minutes of repeating more or less what's on the bottle.

Which isn't the kind of talking I was talking about.

Also, I know the couple of times I've been prescribed things (Tylenol-3 after surgery, anti-inflammatories for knee problems, etc.) I got nothing more than exactly that, and I'm pretty sure the teenage girl working the desk wasn't the pharmacist.



If that really were the case, the pharmacist would have no place at all in today's medicine. However, between an ever-increasing amount of patients, increasingly diverse fields of medicine, and restrictions being placed upon doctors and pharmacies by insurance companies (who are the real villains, honestly... they have no business dictating who a patient should or should not see, but somehow they get to in the interest in making money), a doctor's actual time with a patient is more limited than ever. Someone has to be there to pick up the slack, and the law mandates that this is where the pharmacist comes in.In my experience time with a doctor is almost never less than 20-30 minutes, even if it's just a cold or something, they still insist on going through all the motions and talking to you the whole time.

Occasionally in the winter/busy months it'll be cut down to 10 and the rest of it will be with a nurse, but that's only if it's something pretty minor and even then it still far outweighs the amount of time a pharmacist or technician spends talking about how to take the pill.

Obviously your pharmacy takes a bit better care of its patients than any we have up here, though I don't think we have an actual professional pharmacy here. There was one where I used to live, but I was too young to remember much about it.

But I'm pretty sure most people don't go to professional pharmacies, or don't go to pharmacies like the one you work at so.


Actually, that's required study.I meant emotionally, financially, socially. Obviously they'd know what it would do to her body.



How can you justify that against the true scope of where a pharmacist's duties actually lie?Black magic!

Or to explain more clearly, by specifics I don't mean pertinent medical knowledge. In example, like I said, they need to know about tearing of the uteral wall by physical trauma caused the bleeding. They don't need to know, specifically, what the physical trauma was. Whether in this case or not. Likewise they don't need to know if the 17 year old 150 pound female of 5'11" with a family history of anemia needs hormonal control because of birth control, or because of anemia related medical issues with their monthly guest. They do need to know all that other stuff, though, so they can inform the doctor if maybe this specific hormonal control would be a poor choice due to blood thinning properties.


In my experience, this often exceeds the amount of time that a doctor spends with the patient. Again, this might just be because I'm from an area where we actually give a damn about our patients.And the doctors don't, I guess. Differently weighted than in my experience.


Absolutely not! The physician has a very specific role in regards to patient care, that of diagnostic, treatment dictation, and emergency care. The physician is absolutely key to the care a patient receives, but this does not make them infallible. What I am saying is that the common view of a pharmacist being a simple pill-pusher is incorrect: the pharmacist, due to his/her specialized knowledge, holds as much esteem in the field as a doctor (which is why many areas will no longer provide less than a doctorate program in the field). Each professional in the field carries with them a certain amount of burden in the care of a patient, and all are entitled to the knowledge and rights, thereof.Well that was hyperbolic, but my point was that the doctor generally deals with the patients needs as a whole person, while the pharmacist gets a chart, and maybe talks to them for a few minutes while they're picking up their medication, and maybe tells them how to take it.

Like I said, in my experience they don't go beyond that. They don't put a stethoscope to your chest and ask you to breath, they don't ask you how bad it hurts, they don't discuss all the alternative treatments with you until you can settle on one together. That's stuff the doctor does. By the time the pharmacist gets in, again, in my experience, most of that has already been decided and the patient is just going there to get the medication.

If the pharmacist DID do all those things, I see little reason to have doctors in the first place.

[Hatake Kakashi]

MN, and I believe there has been some counsel over the phone for family members now that you mention it, but it's never more than a couple of minutes of repeating more or less what's on the bottle.

Which isn't the kind of talking I was talking about.

Also, I know the couple of times I've been prescribed things (Tylenol-3 after surgery, anti-inflammatories for knee problems, etc.) I got nothing more than exactly that, and I'm pretty sure the teenage girl working the desk wasn't the pharmacist.

That's rather frightening, honestly. I was trained by Dr. Shawn Needham, the owner of one of six pharmacies in the nation that do the kind of work we do. Admittedly, my own view of things can be tinted by this... We take the patient into the private counseling room and discuss every. last. minute. detail about what they're about to take does. We compound medications from base chemicals to order. We deal in pills, IV compounds, mixtures to be vaporized, prosthetic parts, the works. Because of the magnitude of what goes on in our Pharmacy (which I can say from experience is VASTLY different from what happens in, say, a WalMart pharmacy), we take an absolutely serious approach to the care of any patient who walks through our door.

Also, you may wish to check with your local laws. Last I knew, no state had any provisions for a technician to counsel a patient or, for that matter, to discuss adjustments to a prescription with a doctor. That lies strictly within the Pharmacist's Scope Of Practice. If she wasn't a pharmacist, she had no business counseling you, and if she was a Pharmacy Intern, she still required the supervision of the P-I-C to counsel.

In my experience time with a doctor is almost never less than 20-30 minutes, even if it's just a cold or something, they still insist on going through all the motions and talking to you the whole time.

Heh. Here we have quite a few pain doctors, who, I am sad to say, just toss prescriptions out the door. One of them killed a 23 year-old female patient about three years back. There were times I joked about walking into their offices on Halloween in a cast and holding a trick-or-treat bag to see what I could walk away with. Seriously, I've seen those imbeciles prescribe Tylox for a minor back or hand injury, when Tramadol would easily serve the purpose.

Occasionally in the winter/busy months it'll be cut down to 10 and the rest of it will be with a nurse, but that's only if it's something pretty minor and even then it still far outweighs the amount of time a pharmacist or technician spends talking about how to take the pill.

Ordinarily, this would make me smirk, but true story... we had one patient come in one time back when I was a tech working in a WalMart out in Othello. She walked in, slammed her prescription on the counter and demanded to have words with our Pharmacist. Now, Mary-Beth (the P-I-C that day) is as sweet as they come, so I found it incredibly difficult to believe anyone would want to have angry words with her, but at any rate, this patient began to berate her about how the birth control pills she was prescribed failed to work, and that she was now pregnant.

After Mary-Beth informed her that BCPs aren't a 100% guarantee that pregnancy won't happen, she did ask if the patient had been taking them every day.

I'm serious as cancer when I tell you this....

The patient replied that she'd been trying, but the damn things kept falling out.

Beyond the humor of the incident, there was a lesson to be learned that even if the bottle says how to take the meds, that's still a reason to repeat the directions explicitly. Moving on....

Obviously your pharmacy takes a bit better care of its patients than any we have up here, though I don't think we have an actual professional pharmacy here. There was one where I used to live, but I was too young to remember much about it.

Again, we take the health of our patients seriously, both from an ethical standpoint and a financial one. We want our patients to be healthy, but in cases where perfect health isn't possible, we also want them to be able to continue functioning and to stay alive. They gotta pay their bills, and so do we.

But I'm pretty sure most people don't go to professional pharmacies, or don't go to pharmacies like the one you work at so.

Sadly, with the advent of retail-style pharmacies, you are most certainly right. They might as well be like Rite-Aid and start putting in Drive-Thru, which to be honest is the most ridiculous concept for a pharmacy I've ever heard of.

I meant emotionally, financially, socially. Obviously they'd know what it would do to her body.

I'll give you that. We do not go into emotional or social issues at the pharmacy, though financially we still do go into, simply because there are often more suitable and equally medically viable treatments available, and we want what is best for our patients.

Black magic!

FUCK! Already repped you for the discussion, now I can't for the humor. Dammit!

If the pharmacist DID do all those things, I see little reason to have doctors in the first place.

Naw. None of us are supermen, we all have limitations on what our expertise can handle. A pharmacist may not necessarily be the best diagnostitician (I know that isn't the proper term, but fuck, it works), nor a physician the best surgeon. There are different specialties for people of differing talents, but we are all equally worthy of regard and choices of ethos.

[Krylo]

I'll give you that. We do not go into emotional or social issues at the pharmacy, though financially we still do go into, simply because there are often more suitable and equally medically viable treatments available, and we want what is best for our patients.See, I think you really need to have all three to be equipped to make a well-informed ethical decision regarding the type of treatment the patient should receive. At least in situations where ethics are the primary motivator and not whether or not something else is cheaper and works just as well (the ethics there are pretty clear, cheaper's better if there's no loss of effectiveness).

There are different specialties for people of differing talents, but we are all equally worthy of regard and choices of ethos.Well, I'd argue that the majority of pharmacists who work at Rite-Aids, Walgreen's, Wal-Mart, Thrifty White, etc. probably don't, and, by the same token, those pain doctors you were talking about probably don't.

And plastic (reconstructive, aside) surgeons get none at all.

But, what I think got lost here in all the minutia about this is that I generally place a patient's rights above those of a doctor or pharmacist--which is why I also don't particularly care for allowing doctors to opt out of treatments they don't believe in ethically. Though I feel less strongly about the doctor/surgeon/ob-gyn bit for multiple reasons (haven't heard of something that could threaten a person's life being refused by a doctor on these grounds, there's generally more time to find another doctor with things like abortions rather than the morning after pill, there's a lot more room for a surgeon who is angry over performing a procedure he doesn't believe in to make a, potentially life threatening, mistake, etc.)

I do have reasons for this, however. I'll be concentrating on reproductive rights, because I don't know of anyone getting in a tizzy over blood transfusions or whatever (except Jehovah's Witnesses, and I think they usually avoid getting into positions where that's an issue for anyone but them).

Mostly, there's the fact that a doctor or a pharmacist doesn't have to live with the results of whatever ethical decision they make for a woman. They aren't stuck going through nine months of sickness and hormonal changes eliciting bloating and other unfun conditions from which their body and mind never truly recover. They don't have to deal with the vaginal tearing. They don't have to deal with post partum mental effects. They don't have to deal with the social stigma of going through pregnancy and, depending on age and area, ostracization.

It's just too easy for them to say no without taking into account all these effects, at least not REALLY taking them into account. It's easy to say and pretend and convince yourself that you do, but I'd argue that anyone who really put themselves in a woman's position, really tried to understand how terrible it could be, would be a lot more open to abortion in at least some cases.

And it's not like a woman can just say, woop, adoption! And walk off with a big ole smile after it's done. Their metabolism may never go back to what it was, they're going to have stretch marks (may seem minor, but it's going to be a constant reminder, and no one likes being ashamed of their body), and the longer they are pregnant the stronger the hormonal changes to their body become and the more dominant the matriarchal instinct becomes. There are women who develop, well, I'm not sure if 'abandonment issues' would be the right wording, but that's as close as I can come--from putting a child up for adoption.

And while it's true that surgical abortions can have the same effects, they're stronger the longer a child has been inside a woman due to both the psychological and physical/hormonal effects of being pregnant.

Compile on top of all that the fact that many morning after pills stop implantation of the sperm rather than causing the fertilized egg to just slide on out, and you have a situation where prescribing them to a woman is no different than allowing a man to buy condoms--an item that is sold over the counter. I believe most birth control is the same way, but I'm not the pharmacist here, and man researching that kind of thing on the internet ain't easy (all the politicking!)

And to be fair, I'm not against say, a pharmacist receiving a prescription for the kind that shunts out a fertilized egg, calling the doctor, checking whether the other type would work well enough, and then doing that. What I am against is them saying that they can't have the morning after pill at all. I'm also against them not just taking it on the chin and administering it if the doctor says that, no, that won't work for whatever reason.

BUT, on the other side of the fence, the worst thing that could happen to a pharmacist or ob/gyn or whatever by removing their ability to choose is making them feel guilty about going against their creed at work.

Yes, I realize that I'm minimizing their plight if they truly believe it's the same as murder, BUT the fact of the matter is each doctor and pharmacist serves how many patients in their medical careers? You'd have a better idea than me. Hundreds? Thousands? As a wise man on a shitty sci-fi show once said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

And even then, minimization aside, I strongly believe that the negative effects on a single woman by denying her the ability to get birth control, abortions, morning after pills, etc. are far stronger than the effects on a medical practitioner in giving them to her.

And again, here, we get to why I'm less against doctors than pharmacists. A pharmacist may give a woman a pill they know will cause an 'abortion', but they will not be putting the pill in the woman's mouth and making her swallow. They will not be exposed to the fetus. They will not be actually physically involved in it, any more than a gun shop owner is physically involved in the suicide of one of his customers.

There's a degree of separation from the act with pharmacists that, to me, spells out a lesser degree of ethical freedom being justified, even without the fact that their services are sometimes needed immediately while an ob/gyn's rarely are.

So at the end of the day I see it like this:

Women are more affected by this than pharmacists are, and more women are affected by this than there are pharmacists affected by it.

Thus... shouldn't women get to choose what happens, not the pharmacists?

[Hatake Kakashi]

Women are more affected by this than pharmacists are, and more women are affected by this than there are pharmacists affected by it.

Thus... shouldn't women get to choose what happens, not the pharmacists?

Sorry for the delayed response. I'm currently attempting to diagnose a problem with my car's speedometer. Everything on the car works perfectly... except that. Strangely enough, I still consider it kind of a crucial thing.

Ultimately, though there is that possible problem in the Bible Belt you mentioned earlier about pharmacies being few and far between, that is precisely why the referral clause is in the objection section of Pharmaceutical law. The pharmacist, indeed, does not have to live with the consequences physically, unlike the woman, and her health does need to be protected. Hence, while the pharmacist is given the right to refuse treatment based on grounds of ethos, he is still required by law to provide a referral to someone nearby who he knows for certain will. The provisions of the law ensure that the practitioners can still serve patients without violating personal ethos, and still protect the well-being of the patients.

EDIT: Reviewing the contents of our discussion, it occurs to me that I'm beating my head against a brick wall when it comes to discussing the values of the law, because it's not something you agree with. Let me try a different tact:

Basically, the way the law works is that it allows people of varying moral or spiritual beliefs to contribute to a service that is noble and beneficial to mankind without violating personal standards. It's not always fun for a patient to be told that they need to go a few blocks/miles down to another pharmacy to fill because of the pharmacist's beliefs, but the system does work. Further, because of the refusal of service, the patient is always free to vote with their wallet and continue to take further needs to the other pharmacy, which is totally within their rights. But I believe it would be a grave mistake to enforce something that could cause thousands upon thousands of practitioners to leave their posts because they're being forced to do something they don't believe in. The last thing this world needs is less caregivers.

[Krylo]

Sorry for the delayed response.Despite appearances I'm not sitting anxiously by the computer waiting. Don't worry about it. It's a forum.

I'm currently attempting to diagnose a problem with my car's speedometer. Everything on the car works perfectly... except that. Strangely enough, I still consider it kind of a crucial thing.Pfft. Just push the gas pedal all the way down. You'll be fine.

Ultimately, though there is that possible problem in the Bible Belt you mentioned earlier about pharmacies being few and far between, that is precisely why the referral clause is in the objection section of Pharmaceutical law. The pharmacist, indeed, does not have to live with the consequences physically, unlike the woman, and her health does need to be protected. Hence, while the pharmacist is given the right to refuse treatment based on grounds of ethos, he is still required by law to provide a referral to someone nearby who he knows for certain will.

True, and like I said the referral thing is part of why I'm not as knotted up at doctors, and even in MOST cases, don't really care about pharmacists (it's not gonna cause too many problems if a woman's birth control has to wait three days to be filled), but there are some cases (morning after pill) where they need it right now, and even a couple of hours that it takes a different pharmacy to fill the prescription can be all the time it takes for it to be too far along for the pregnancy to be stopped with them, leaving a woman needing a much more expensive, more damaging, and more traumatizing abortion--or having a child.

Basically, while I think the referral thing is fine and dandy, I don't think it's enough protection for the patient. The patient's rights are more important than the medical practitioner's rights in this situation and thus should supersede the medical practitioner's rights.

Like I said, I have no problem with meeting a middle ground, but the current middle ground still leaves some women out in the cold, and as long as that's the case, the middle ground needs to move.

[Hatake Kakashi]

Despite appearances I'm not sitting anxiously by the computer waiting. Don't worry about it. It's a forum.

Liar.

Pfft. Just push the gas pedal all the way down. You'll be fine.

My insurance broker would be inclined to disagree, and would most likely enjoy speaking with you on the subject.

True, and like I said the referral thing is part of why I'm not as knotted up at doctors, and even in MOST cases, don't really care about pharmacists (it's not gonna cause too many problems if a woman's birth control has to wait three days to be filled), but there are some cases (morning after pill) where they need it right now, and even a couple of hours that it takes a different pharmacy to fill the prescription can be all the time it takes for it to be too far along for the pregnancy to be stopped with them, leaving a woman needing a much more expensive, more damaging, and more traumatizing abortion--or having a child.

Basically, while I think the referral thing is fine and dandy, I don't think it's enough protection for the patient. The patient's rights are more important than the medical practitioner's rights in this situation and thus should supersede the medical practitioner's rights.

Like I said, I have no problem with meeting a middle ground, but the current middle ground still leaves some women out in the cold, and as long as that's the case, the middle ground needs to move.

Perhaps a more suitable middle ground would be the employment of multiple pharmacists of variable ethos within a given facility. And making sure their employers aren't too cheap to keep them on the clock at the same time. Our pharmacy sees maybe 1/8th of the patients that WalMart does, yet we keep three pharmacists on staff at all times during operating hours, while they typically have only one.

It's the best solution that I can offer, despite a whole other can of worms (employment based on religious/spiritual/ethical standards) that the question opens.

[Fifthfiend]

I think these things being called "conscience clauses" is one of the more hilarious moral abominations I've heard of.

Perhaps a more suitable middle ground would be the employment of multiple pharmacists of variable ethos within a given facility. And making sure their employers aren't too cheap to keep them on the clock at the same time. Our pharmacy sees maybe 1/8th of the patients that WalMart does, yet we keep three pharmacists on staff at all times during operating hours, while they typically have only one.

It's the best solution that I can offer, despite a whole other can of worms (employment based on religious/spiritual/ethical standards) that the question opens.

Sounds like the middle ground is for pharmacists to just do their jobs instead of worrying super-hard about whether their patients are fucking too much using pseudoscience and a supposed concern for hypothetical fertilized eggs which literally aren't even embryos, let alone fetuses, as a pretext.

Won't somebody please, think of the zygotes?!

[Hatake Kakashi]

I think these things being called "conscience clauses" is one of the more hilarious moral abominations I've heard of.



Sounds like the middle ground is for pharmacists to just do their jobs instead of worrying super-hard about whether their patients are fucking too much using pseudoscience and a supposed concern for hypothetical fertilized eggs which literally aren't even embryos, let alone fetuses, as a pretext.

Won't somebody please, think of the zygotes?!

Meh. Got better things to do than to even touch this argument with you.

[Archbio]

It's the best solution that I can offer, despite a whole other can of worms (employment based on religious/spiritual/ethical standards) that the question opens.

A can of worm that's a bigger problem than the supposed problem it would solve. You mention Walmart I suppose because it's easy to imagine that they could spare the expense of having a proper drug department on scale with the rest, but there's probably a lot of establishments that just couldn't match that.

And that's just the practical side of it.

[Hatake Kakashi]

A can of worm that's a bigger problem than the supposed problem it would solve. You mention Walmart I suppose because it's easy to imagine that they could spare the expense of having a proper drug department on scale with the rest, but there's probably a lot of establishments that just couldn't match that.

And that's just the practical side of it.

Admittedly, yes, the costs would be rather high, and then there is the task of keeping a workplace filled with different standards civil. Some places can do it. Some can't.

I mainly mention Walmart because it was my sorry displeasure to actually be there firsthand to see exactly how the operation is run. Their only drawing power is that everyone is there to shop anyway, might as well grab the drugs while they're at it.

But I'll tell you this: 1 pharmacist, 3-4 techs in just about every one of their pharmacies I've ever been in. Pharmacist is usually run-down, busting his/her ass trying to keep up, it's no small wonder to me that most people don't see them as much more than pill-jockeys behind the counter. Frankly, it's a waste of time, study, and talent. I truly wouldn't mind seeing WalMart's pharmacy division annihilated altogether.

[Magus]

I think most people here are missing the fact that this pharmacist went out of their way to ask what the medication was being used for, which apparently if they knew the law they wouldn't bother asking because they are not allowed to be told because of privacy concerns, so why did the pharmacist even ask in the first place? Somebody was bleeding to death, I see no reason why it's important for the pharmacist to know why the person is bleeding to death. It just doesn't seem to be in their purview by anybody's measure of esteem for pharmacists...except pharmacists, I guess?

I mean, if I go to the pharmacist with a prescription for some medicine for oh, my ass, I shouldn't have some pharmacist going "is this because you were engaging in gay anal sex? 'Cause if so you ain't gettin' dis pill, no siree bob". I mean, it's not really their damn business and it's probably just for my massive pus-filled hemorrhoids or what have you anyway*. Should I be required to say, "No, this is not because I engaged in anal sex, this is for my giant puss-filled hemorrhoids?" Who is this conscience law protecting, exactly? It just doesn't seem to be in a pharmacists purview to make decisions about what medicine somebody receives.

I mean, why is it a pharmacists business what the medicine is used for, why are there laws protecting pharmacists' right to know stuff they don't have any right to know? It's not in their purview, they are just to dispense the medicine a doctor prescribes, I don't believe there is any intense moral facet to the art of pharmacology like there is other branches of medicine, or if so they have not been making a big deal about it for the past 250 years. So if someone could enlighten me as to why pharmacists are being given conscience clauses allowing them to refuse medication for whatever despite this never really coming up in their job purview as far as I can tell, that would be great. I mean, has this been going on for a long time? Is there a long tradition of pharmacists making decisions about what medicines people should receive? Or has that pretty much been 100% doctors decisions up til whenever this law was put into effect for pharmacists?

I mean, here is the current oath of Pharmacists:

"I promise to devote myself to a lifetime of service to others through the profession of pharmacy. In fulfilling this vow:

* I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of suffering my primary concerns.
* I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal outcomes for my patients.
* I will respect and protect all personal and health information entrusted to me.
* I will accept the lifelong obligation to improve my professional knowledge and competence.
* I will hold myself and my colleagues to the highest principles of our profession’s moral, ethical and legal conduct.
* I will embrace and advocate changes that improve patient care.
* I will utilize my knowledge, skills, experiences, and values to prepare the next generation of pharmacists."

I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.”

There isn't really a lot of leeway for interpretation of making huge social change except in a couple of spots which are so vague("I will hold myself...to the highest principles of our profession's moral, ethical, and legal conduct", for example, and yet objectively those principles are just those espouses in the oath which makes no mention of specific moral viewpoints so...withholding medication would be in direct opposition to a couple of clauses in the oath, so yeah) that I don't really see anything in there "I will withhold medication if I think it is wise to do so" or whatever. Heck, they are specifically supposed to protect patient privacy in one of the clauses, so if they aren't supposed to know something, they shouldn't be asking it.

At best, the pharmacist can "advocate changes that improve patient care", and if they think that letting someone bleed to death by withholding lifesaving medication because they are bleeding from an abortion as opposed to child care, they can advocate for that to be made law or whatever, but since they can't know whether it is from one or the other, it seems to me they'd have to just go ahead and dispense it. And even if they did know they'd have to do whatever the law says, which in this case seems to be at least to refer them to another pharmacy.

*Not that I have giant pus-filled hemorrhoids, of course.

[Hatake Kakashi]

* I will hold myself and my colleagues to the highest principles of our profession’s moral, ethical and legal conduct.

I can barely bring myself to believe we're still on this. To be honest, I just don't feel like rehashing my statements again.

Tell me... does anyone else actually work behind the pharmacy counter, or are we simply throwing assumptions out to see what kinds of ways we can bait people?:raise:

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I've trained pharmacy students (we make them do lots of analytical chemistry type courses). And nowhere do we teach them the theology,philosophy, neuroscience, developmental biology, sociology and economics courses that would be required for them to make these kinds of decisions for society. Cause hoshit, you're making decisions for society here.
At the very minimium you're making decisions for other people which unless you some kind of psychiatric financial planning mind reading philosophic super guru you also aren't qualified for.

And you talk about various types of doctors being seen as bottom of the rung. Every department in every field is considered low by someone. As chemists that is how we consider pharmacists. It is pretty meaningless.

[Marc v4.0]

I can almost understand objecting to prescribing a morning-after pill

I can almost understand objecting to prescribing a birth control pill

However, this is a plain old anti-bleeding med, which has nothing to do with anything but bleeding.

This wasn't an objection to prescribing something you don't believe in, this was an act of pure condemnation of the patient for something that was already done.

This is not ok.

[Funka Genocide]

Yeah I don't really get most of this thread. The article never said anything about denying birth control or abortion medications. It's to help with internal bleeding.

Basically the pharmacist in question just decided that internal bleeding probably means the patient is evil.

That makes them crazy. And hopefully unemployed.

[Hatake Kakashi]

*facepalm*

Alright. I'm saying this and walking away.

SMB, yes, you teach pharmacy students analytical chemistry courses. Yes, that is quite an important field of knowledge to Pharmacists everywhere. Did it ever occur to you, however, that there are more fields of study, more things to be considered, than simple chemistry? Particularly in areas of the world that may have differing ethos than yours?

Marc, we do have ability to object to the morning-after pill, but we must redirect them to someone who won't. We do not have the ability to reject birth control pills, except when they are prescribed in a massive-overdose format that makes it blatantly obvious that it's being used as a morning-after. As for the anti-bleeding med, it's already been admitted that the pharmacist in question acted out of line. Further, it was even stated that, yes, the procedure had already been completed, therefore, she had no grounds to object.

Funka, same story. And I agree, hopefully unemployed.

[Marc v4.0]

Ok? I was just blurting out my view on it, not challenging or questioning your stance on it.

[tacticslion]

Ok? I was just blurting out my view on it, not challenging or questioning your stance on it.

I think HK is just kind of wearied by all the (for fun) arguments with Krylo and the myriad of sardonic, dismissive type of posts, and while he was personalizing it, you were just kind of in the midst. That said, I think we all have agreed - the pharmacist is in the wrong. It's just sad that one person's mistake casts a bad light on all who would agree with the base sentiment.

[Magus]

Sorry Kakashi but while I believe doctors should value pharmacists' advice and opinions (allergic reactions from medicinal combinations, for example), they should probably just go ahead and defer to what a doctor prescribes as a final decision. The doctor should be making the final decision.

If a person is against birth control, they probably shouldn't become a pharmacist because they are undoubtedly going to be asked daily to dole out birth control pills, sell condoms over the counter, etc, or they should make sure to get a job where they can easily defer to a colleague. Otherwise you're going to get into situations where you could possibly have a pharmacist who doesn't sell any pills except for strep throat or what have you.

The reason all the other permutations are coming up is the slippery slope concept which is usually a fallacy, but when you see somebody refusing to sell anti-bleeding medication on the off-chance it is being used to save the life of a woman who recently had an abortion, your mind starts churning through the possibilities, such as:

A pharmacist refuses to prescribe birth control or morning after pills because they don't believe in any form of birth control.
A pharmacist refuses to prescribe medicines that cure STDs because that just encourages promiscuity.
A pharmacist refuses to prescribe anti-viral AIDS medication unless you present evidence that you have had AIDS since birth.

And so on. I can think them up, they're possible, and they even seem likely when I read topics like this, perhaps not on a large scale but all it takes is one extremist somewhere (like this pharmacist here) to make it seem like a bad idea to allow pharmacists these conscience clauses, especially in situations where they are not even participating in an abortion but simply in the aftermath of said procedure.

[bluestarultor]

Magus, I'm just going to say this about doctors and medications: doctors don't know shit about medications. That's why they have pharmacists. Doctors get pills shoved into their lists by pharmacy reps and insurance companies and have no clue whatsoever about VERY IMPORTANT things like drug interactions and dosages outside of what they're fed by others, or how things are metabolized, or how they enter the system, or how long they stay in your system, or what organs they're hard on. It's the pharmacist's job to handle all those kinds of details. In fact, many times, doctors don't even prescribe the dosages people need. It's incredibly common for them to underestimate the amount of time a person needs to be on medication and ultimately leave their patients still sick after they're supposed to be "done." Then they need to resort to another medication to clean up their own mess.

To put it this way, pharmacy, from my personal education, is not just doling out pills. It's quietly working behind the scenes and ultimately making the doctors look good because the doctors conveniently never mention all the work pharmacists do and let people give them all the credit. If doctors didn't need people with the kind of education pharmacists get, they could train monkeys to shovel out the tablets.

[akaSM]

If a person is against birth control, they probably shouldn't become a pharmacist because they are undoubtedly going to be asked daily to dole out birth control pills, sell condoms over the counter, etc, or they should make sure to get a job where they can easily defer to a colleague. Otherwise you're going to get into situations where you could possibly have a pharmacist who doesn't sell any pills except for strep throat or what have you

This, seriously, if you don't want to do something, don't get in a job where you have to do it. Also, I'm not sure how does the pharmacist/doctor relationship work in the US but, at least here the docs that I know, know what kind of interactions, side effects and lots of other things about the meds they prescribe.

[Kim]

Thanks for the broad, over-arching crass generalizations that continue to make meaningful dialogue between two disagreeing parties possible!

Meaningful dialogue? Clearly you haven't been paying too much attention to the anti-abortion side.

There is no meaningful dialogue to be had.

Women deserve the right to an abortion. Anti-abortion arguments are based solely on assumptions and outright lies.

Restriction of abortion has known harmful effects on women, especially those who are the victims of rape.

Those who fight hardest against abortion are quite often those who fight against teaching of safe sex in schools and better sex ed in general, things that would have an actual diminishing effect on abortion rates, as well as other positive results.

That is the situation. Arguing against abortion rights reveals a persons ignorance, and is morally reprehensible. End of discussion.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Meaningful dialogue? Clearly you haven't been paying too much attention to the anti-abortion side.

There is no meaningful dialogue to be had.

Women deserve the right to an abortion. Anti-abortion arguments are based solely on assumptions and outright lies.

Restriction of abortion has known harmful effects on women, especially those who are the victims of rape.

Those who fight hardest against abortion are quite often those who fight against teaching of safe sex in schools and better sex ed in general, things that would have an actual diminishing effect on abortion rates, as well as other positive results.

That is the situation. Arguing against abortion rights reveals a persons ignorance, and is morally reprehensible. End of discussion.


There should definitely be a lot of exceptions, in cases like rapes, medical concerns. However personally I just don't like the idea of everyone and anyone who has a pregnancy being able to terminate the baby because they don't want to carry it through.
The most difficult moral question to me is the issue of rape cases, because I hold the lives of even a fetus as something precious, yet at the same time understand the horrendous psychological affects such a thing can have on an unwilling mother. I truly don't have a solid position on these, but lean toward the decision being in the hands of the mother.

Whether or not you want to acknowledge it there is a boundary, both moral and logical between the people you're talking about and others that happen to share that conflicted opinion with your own.

[Marc v4.0]

Magus, I'm just going to say this about doctors and medications: doctors don't know shit about medications. That's why they have pharmacists. Doctors get pills shoved into their lists by pharmacy reps and insurance companies and have no clue whatsoever about VERY IMPORTANT things like drug interactions and dosages outside of what they're fed by others, or how things are metabolized, or how they enter the system, or how long they stay in your system, or what organs they're hard on. It's the pharmacist's job to handle all those kinds of details. In fact, many times, doctors don't even prescribe the dosages people need. It's incredibly common for them to underestimate the amount of time a person needs to be on medication and ultimately leave their patients still sick after they're supposed to be "done." Then they need to resort to another medication to clean up their own mess.


I don't know what sort of third world doctor you go to, but that simply isn't how that shit is run at a legitimate practice

[McTahr]

Magus, I'm just going to say this about doctors and medications: doctors don't know shit about medications. That's why they have pharmacists. Doctors get pills shoved into their lists by pharmacy reps and insurance companies and have no clue whatsoever about VERY IMPORTANT things like drug interactions and dosages outside of what they're fed by others, or how things are metabolized, or how they enter the system, or how long they stay in your system, or what organs they're hard on. It's the pharmacist's job to handle all those kinds of details. In fact, many times, doctors don't even prescribe the dosages people need. It's incredibly common for them to underestimate the amount of time a person needs to be on medication and ultimately leave their patients still sick after they're supposed to be "done." Then they need to resort to another medication to clean up their own mess.

To put it this way, pharmacy, from my personal education, is not just doling out pills. It's quietly working behind the scenes and ultimately making the doctors look good because the doctors conveniently never mention all the work pharmacists do and let people give them all the credit. If doctors didn't need people with the kind of education pharmacists get, they could train monkeys to shovel out the tablets.

Haha no. Not always. At least in my experience my father spent more time listening to tapes on/reading the latest medical trials for all the various drugs and medicines and treatments of that very second than he spent in the office, which is to say he spent about eighteen to twenty hours a day being very busy not fucking up.

Doctors get a bad rap for the shit ones, and it gets me every time. There's a reason HK's in here defending the pharmaceutical profession as much as he is, and it's because the entire medical field is generalized as being incompetent at pretty much every end of the spectrum purely because of general human incompetence. Every field has people who are just plain god awful or don't give a damn. When really, I can tell you from personal experience that a good doctor will put more time into his patients than his/her family, and know his/her shit better than you will ever give them credit for. Because hey quite frankly why wouldn't they whenever people'll sue the ever-loving fuck out of them should they make even the slightest error?

Of course, this is rather tangential, but I generally hate to see doctors slammed with generalizations more than I do anything else.

The thread could probably do without insulting the professions involved. Instead, use that time and energy to, you know, discuss the topic. People will be happier for it.*

*Technically not a mod request. There's no "don't dis docs/pharmacists, yo" rule. It's just not exactly conducive to the discussion in the least bit.

[Fenris]

Women deserve the right to an abortion. Anti-abortion arguments are based solely on assumptions and outright lies.

Also, opinions. Opinions you and I may not agree with, but opinions that aren't necessarily wrong, either.

[Kim]

That's what I meant by assumptions.

[Premmy]

I've been calling opinions of all kinds bullshit for ages, it works fantastically. Try it out.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

That's what I meant by assumptions.

So, the idea that a fetus is indeed a human being and deserving of at least some chance to live, barring certain cases, is an assumption.
However not believing that is...a fact? An opinion?

You know what, screw it. You go ahead and keep saying that I and all others who are anti abortion without any exception are ignorant and fucking horrible people and I guess I'll just call you a baby hater/killer/eater. In addition, I'll assert that you also hate this song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_izvAbhExY&ob=av3nm since you obviously don't want any fetus to be stayin' alive.

That'll work fucking great.

[Krylo]

and I guess I'll just call you a baby eater.
That'll work fucking great.

You should probably try to come up with something he doesn't actually do.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

SMB, yes, you teach pharmacy students analytical chemistry courses. Yes, that is quite an important field of knowledge to Pharmacists everywhere. Did it ever occur to you, however, that there are more fields of study, more things to be considered, than simple chemistry? Particularly in areas of the world that may have differing ethos than yours?
Notice how my entire post was talking about subjects other than chemistry and how pharmacists are not taught any subject that gives them the ability to mandate on "moral" decisions. Like my enire post was the complete opposite of what you portrayed it as.
And I have degree in various artsy stuff as well, I totally don't like chemistry and think science is bollocks in general- I have no idea where this stereotype of me is coming from.

Can we go the opposite way and make abortions mandatory unless you can prove you are suitably equipped to raise a child? It'll solve a lot of lingering problems.

[Kim]

So, the idea that a fetus is indeed a human being and deserving of at least some chance to live, barring certain cases, is an assumption.
However not believing that is...a fact? An opinion?

There's a difference between an assumption that has no factual basis and says "Well there's no reason to think this other than someone else totally said so with no scientific basis for that statement" and an assumption that says "There's no legit evidence to the contrary so yeah this makes the most sense."

You can still call me a baby eater, though.

[Archbio]

There should definitely be a lot of exceptions, in cases like rapes, medical concerns.

Pregnancy and delivery are medical concerns.

You go ahead and keep saying that I and all others who are anti abortion without any exception are ignorant and fucking horrible people and I guess I'll just call you a baby eater.

You kind of do that as a matter of course, though. I mean, when the lynchpin of your position is that "any stage of gestation is a human being, therefore: rights," (even if you don't carry that enormous premise through by allowing for exceptions,) leaving alone the time the word children or babies are actually used then, you kind of calling aborting a pregnancy moider most foul.

I mean the post in which you say that you're on the fence about pregnancies resulting from rape is almost a dare to call you horrible.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

There's a difference between an assumption that has no factual basis and says "Well there's no reason to think this other than someone else totally said so with no scientific basis for that statement" and an assumption that says "There's no legit evidence to the contrary so yeah this makes the most sense."

You can still call me a baby eater, though.

But with all of the facts of the situation, the development of the fetus in the future and its current status I actively choose to consider it a human being, it's not an assumption. More an interpretation on what it is to be human.

[Kim]

Are we human...

Or are we dancers?

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Are we human...

Or are we dancers?

My sign is vital...the fetus is cold.

[Kim]

The development of the fetus in the future isn't a fact. It could miscarry.

It could grow up to be Dane Cook.

Think about that.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Another problem solved by my mandatory abortion scheme.

[McTahr]

Another problem solved by my mandatory abortion scheme.

What if Dane Cook's parents somehow proved to be perfectly capable and reasonable human beings? We need a more perfect system, Smarty.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

I mean the post in which you say that you're on the fence about pregnancies resulting from rape is almost a dare to call you horrible.

I just don't think it that horrible to not want to blame the fetus for the actions of its biological father.
Like I said though, the primary concern should go to the mother's mental well being.
Edit: By that I mean that in this particular case the mental well being is more likely to be the main issue, physical well being is equally important.

The development of the fetus in the future isn't a fact. It could miscarry.

It could grow up to be Dane Cook.

Think about that.

It could also be Leslie Nielsen.
Dunno about you, but I'd be willing to let a few more Dane Cook's into the world, maybe even half a Hitler if it meant more Leslie Nielsen.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

What if Dane Cook's parents somehow proved to be perfectly capable and reasonable human beings? We need a more perfect system, Smarty.

This seems unlikely. I think we can take the risk.

[Token]

The development of the fetus in the future isn't a fact. It could miscarry.

It could grow up to be Dane Cook.

Think about that.

Yep. Because being a shitty comedian is enough of a crime to justify not deserving to exist.

Token's view on all this shit: both pro-choice and pro-life men should all shut the hell up unless it's their own damn kid, and even then, it's not their choice. And all I see in this thread, and pretty much *every othere* abortion thread on this forum is a bunch of men arguing over shit that has nothing to do with them. It gets tedious.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Token's view on all this shit

Grthwllms has to wonder why Token is referring to Token as Token while Tokening it up.

[Marc v4.0]

What if Dane Cook's parents somehow proved to be perfectly capable and reasonable human beings? We need a more perfect system, Smarty.

I think all the evidence (Dane Cook) clearly illustrates this would not have been the case.

[Bob The Mercenary]

I've seen this argument go around in circles hundreds of times and eventually arrive at the same question. What is the unborn? Really that's all you guys should be concerned with. If it is, it's morally abominable. If it's not, it's basically a tooth pull.

If it were up to me, and we could supply ample care (and I'm talking the best care possible) to a rape victim's child, I'd be more inclined to be against the procedure altogether.

[Token]

Grthwllms has to wonder why Token is referring to Token as Token while Tokening it up.

Because that's how Token rolls, motherfucker.

[McTahr]

Yep. Because being a shitty comedian is enough of a crime to justify not deserving to exist.

Pretty sure it was a joke, but who knows!

Rest of it

In the perspective of the forum, it amounts to a net zero gain no matter what, if not negative, because quite frankly how many people ever actually took advice or listened to another person on the internet?

Aside from that there is the argument of blah blah dangerous pregnancies health risks etc. being forced on women by extremists of one side, while blah blah the other side sees what they consider human beings getting murdilated. Generally the goal being to advocate the stopping of the other side's practice and thusly saving women/fetuses through whatever means possible.

General standpoint being you don't just let something/someone die because you're not involved.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Because that's how Token rolls, motherfucker.

Grthwllms can't roll like that cause Grthwllms can't pronounce that so often as to refer to Grthwllms as Grthwllms and Grthwllms likes to say his posts aloud to make sure they feel right, so Grthwllms would be sorta screwed if he were to Grth the Wllms all up in this joint.

[Kim]

Pretty sure it was a joke, but who knows!

They can't even tell if I'm joking and I'm still funnier than Dane Cook.

[Nikose Tyris]

McTahr's Voice Here

General point, those are health risks WOMEN have, not that Men have. A man has no place having an opinion of any sort regarding abortion, unless that's your hellspawn in her. If it is, you get an opinion, but even then- her body. Her choice.

[Bob The Mercenary]

General point, those are health risks WOMEN have, not that Men have. A man has no place having an opinion of any sort regarding abortion, unless that's your hellspawn in her. If it is, you get an opinion, but even then- her body. Her choice.

That's assuming it's one body.

[McTahr]

Oh yeah don't get me wrong I'm all about bouncing those babies like some species of bro at the felt fence outside the club, I was just responding to Token's post about the dismissal of both sides via the argument "you aren't involved."

[Nikose Tyris]

That's assuming it's one body.

If I mystically fuse with her and we become a two headed being capable of asexual reproduction, I'll demand my voice be given equal vote, I promise.

Edit for McTahr: I'm closer to his side then yours, actually; I'm neither pro nor anti abortion. I'm of the opinion that, as we are not forcing babies out of our respective crotches, we don't get to have an opinion. This is major body work being done to a woman, and it's her choice if she wants that or not.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Yep. Because being a shitty comedian is enough of a crime to justify not deserving to exist.

Token's view on all this shit: both pro-choice and pro-life men should all shut the hell up unless it's their own damn kid, and even then, it's not their choice. And all I see in this thread, and pretty much *every othere* abortion thread on this forum is a bunch of men arguing over shit that has nothing to do with them. It gets tedious.

What? Like white guys shouldn't have argued against slavery either I guess?
We shouldn't argue against detainees in guantanamo. And even these cases are further removed than this because the decision to allow abortions or not has large societal effects beyond the individual. You can;t just ignore it.

[Eltargrim]

...what the fuck just happened?

[Token]

Oh yeah don't get me wrong I'm all about bouncing those babies like some species of bro at the felt fence outside the club, I was just responding to Token's post about the dismissal of both sides via the argument "you aren't involved."

It wasn't dismissal as much as it was exasperation over how morally outraged both sides have gotten over guidelines placed on the lives of women. Just seems sort of bullshit.

[Bob The Mercenary]

If I mystically fuse with her and we become a two headed being capable of asexual reproduction, I'll demand my voice be given equal vote, I promise.

That isn't how you do it already? SHOCK

[Token]

What? Like white guys shouldn't have argued against slavery either I guess?
We shouldn't argue against detainees in guantanamo. And even these cases are further removed than this because the decision to allow abortions or not has large societal effects beyond the individual. You can;t just ignore it.

Yeah, no. What I'm saying is men should not be making the decision.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Yeah, no. What I'm saying is men should not be making the decision.

So a conservative all-female Congress is elected and...

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I certainly think men should be involved. Cause who else is going to look at the economics of abortion, the sociological effects and the impact on wider society? WOMEN? Titter titter titter.
Besides they'll certainly need to get a man in to draft the laws, all those long words will just make them dizzy.

[Premmy]

So a conservative all-female Congress is elected and...


Mind: BLOWN!

[Token]

So a conservative all-female Congress is elected and...

Then they can do whatever the fuck they want since they were elected by the people.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Mind: BLOWN!

That was hypothetical.

[Nikose Tyris]

Then they can do whatever the fuck they want since they were elected by the people.

Good with this. Let women rule the world. Men tend to fuck shit up in testosterone induced idiocy anyway.

[Archbio]

I just don't think it that horrible to not want to blame the fetus for the actions of its biological father.

I really don't think punishment and blame of the fetus (or more likely the embryo) needs to enter the situation as an explanation for why one would want to terminate a pregnancy resulting from rape.

One would need to accept the premise that the embryo is a person for that to be a thing.

[Krylo]

General point, those are health risks WOMEN have, not that Men have. A man has no place having an opinion of any sort regarding abortion, unless that's your hellspawn in her. If it is, you get an opinion, but even then- her body. Her choice.

Yep. Because being a shitty comedian is enough of a crime to justify not deserving to exist.

Token's view on all this shit: both pro-choice and pro-life men should all shut the hell up unless it's their own damn kid, and even then, it's not their choice. And all I see in this thread, and pretty much *every othere* abortion thread on this forum is a bunch of men arguing over shit that has nothing to do with them. It gets tedious.

Yeah, no. What I'm saying is men should not be making the decision.

This... is the most stupid bullshit argument for pro-choice men being told to shut up I have ever heard in the history of ever.

This includes arguments such as 'well if she didn't want a baby she shouldn't have walked down that dark alley by her self!'

Why? Because this is exactly the thing that pro-choice men are saying. Let. Women. Choose.

If Abortions are legal then any woman can choose either way whether or not to have a child. It's not telling her to do anything. It's not forcing guidelines on her. It is actually dudes saying exactly the opposite: That women should be allowed to choose.

Seriously, the cognitive dissonance in telling people who want women to be able to choose that they need to shut up so that women can choose is like... just... I don't...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/krylo/Reactions/ScannersExplodingHead.gif

Edit: P.S. Archbio? Totally a chick. So, I guess that means Pro-Choice wins by forfeit if you have your way?

[Bob The Mercenary]

One would need to accept the premise that the embryo is a person for that to be a thing.

See that's the thing. And I'm seriously not trying to troll here or anything. Also this will be my last question then I'll head to bed and be out of your hair. If we aren't 100% sure that the thing in question is not a person, why chance it if there's even the possibility that it is a person? The metaphor I always hear is that if you're hunting, you don't fire the gun unless you know for sure that thing moving in the woods over there is a deer and not a human.

[Krylo]

See that's the thing. And I'm seriously not trying to troll here or anything. Also this will be my last question then I'll head to bed and be out of your hair. If we aren't 100% sure that the thing in question is not a person, why chance it if there's even the possibility that it is a person? The metaphor I always hear is that if you're hunting, you don't fire the gun unless you know for sure that thing moving in the woods over there is a deer and not a human.
Because to most of us on this side of the fence, there IS no question.
http://www.glowm.com/resources/glowm/uploads/1214776232_blastocyst.jpg

[Bob The Mercenary]

Because to most of us on this side of the fence, there IS no question.
http://www.glowm.com/resources/glowm/uploads/1214776232_blastocyst.jpg

At what point does it become a person then?

[Krylo]

18 years after birth.

Sixteen in most South American Countries.

[Nikose Tyris]

18 years after birth.

Sixteen in most South American Countries.

...*checks NonCon's age*

[Krylo]

...*checks NonCon's age*

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/2745792928_f7dda955e5_o.jpg

[Fenris]

Thread over! If you want to make a thread for reasonable debate and not... whatever the hell this is, by all means.