RWN pharmacist tries to kill a patient

[^_^ 5,021]

A Walgreens pharmacist refused to fill a prescription ordered by one of Planned Parenthood's Boise-based nurse practitioners. The prescription was for a Planned Parenthood patient for Methergine, a medicine used to prevent or control bleeding of the uterus following childbirth or an abortion.

...

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.

“Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest public affairs staff has since contacted Walgreens' Corporate office, and corrective action was taken with the Nampa pharmacist,” Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest Director of Public Affairs Kristen Glundberg-Prossor said.

Legislation was passed last year giving pharmacists and other health care providers the right to refuse to provide any health care service or dispense any drugs that violates their conscience.

http://www.idahopress.com/news/article_528847ac-1e9f-11e0-8247-001cc4c03286.html

[Ban Hammer 13,475]

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their conscience, even though the treatment has been prescribed by a doctor and even though the store probably stocks those drugs?

What utter bollocks that is.

[Peikko 1,575]

There's a lot of utter bollocks that goes on in the name of 'freedom' in the US

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

There's a lot of utter bollocks that goes on in the name of 'freedom' in the US

UK has opt out as well if I remember.

[james&olya 1,121]

Where do you draw the line? Can my emergency room doctor refuse to treat right wing nuts? How about the bad guy that shoots cops and is wounded himself? What about homosexual aids patients? Shouldn't society be able to say tough, if you choose to have certain occupations you leave your prejudices and religious biases at the door? But I know this is a difficult area, it would seem not to be reasonable to require active participation in an act of abortion for instance. But does the pharmacist have the right to refuse to dispense this medication or contraceptives? Should the convenience store clerk get to refuse to sell the customer condoms? Tough questions.

[luckytxn 2,265]

There are many competitors to Wal Greens in any area. If they don't want to do something then walk across the street. This is hardly a Pharmacist trying to kill anyone.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Where do you draw the line? Can my emergency room doctor refuse to treat right wing nuts? How about the bad guy that shoots cops and is wounded himself? What about homosexual aids patients? Shouldn't society be able to say tough, if you choose to have certain occupations you leave your prejudices and religious biases at the door? But I know this is a difficult area, it would seem not to be reasonable to require active participation in an act of abortion for instance. But does the pharmacist have the right to refuse to dispense this medication or contraceptives? Should the convenience store clerk get to refuse to sell the customer condoms? Tough questions.

Actually some pharmacies refuse to stock condoms and birth control tablets and are permitted to. I believe convenience stores would be allowed to as well if company policy permits it. It would be stupid to do so though.. think of all the people having sex and the money you miss out on

[james&olya 1,121]

Actually some pharmacies refuse to stock condoms and birth control tablets and are permitted to. I believe convenience stores would be allowed to as well if company policy permits it. It would be stupid to do so though.. think of all the people having sex and the money you miss out on

What about rural locations where customers have little choice?

There are many competitors to Wal Greens in any area. If they don't want to do something then walk across the street. This is hardly a Pharmacist trying to kill anyone.

Not in my area! We don't even have a Wal-Greens!

[VanessaTony 3,567]

What about rural locations where customers have little choice?

I do recall a pharmacy that was involved in some scandal because of this. It was the only pharmacy in a certain distance and refused to sell condoms or birth control or something like that. I believe their right to not offer this service was upheld, but the uproar caused them to fold and sell it.

I'll see if I can find the article... well so far can't find it but this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/15/AR2008061502180.html?hpid=moreheadlines discusses a pharmacy that doesn't sell candy, pop, birth control or "Plan B". Wow.

Honestly I'm not religious so you can ignore the following opinion but anyway... I think someone who is truly religious, and truly a good person wouldn't try and force their religion on you and be so intolerant. I don't care that their belief say no abortion. If I was raped I'm getting an abortion and i don't think I should die because they won't give me medication to help stop post-op bleeding. I don't care that they believe that sex = babies and that I'm not "allowed" to stop it. I believe that even christians masturbate. How can it be okay to get rid of baby juice (eww :S ) How is only have sex when they're not ovulating not preventing pregnancy? Maybe God is MAKING you feel horny on specific days 'cause he wants a baby made. It's just ridiculously subjective.

Anyway I think it's stupid and I think it SHOULD be illegal. I wish I could think of a good argument but I can't because rationally I know that it's their right to refuse service (like some restaurants that have dress codes) and I don't have a RIGHT to medication/service, but what if none of my nearby pharmacies stocked medication I needed because they didn't believe in it? Could I sue the pharmacy if I was forced to order the drugs online and wasn't made aware of contra-indications and subsequently got seriously ill? After all, their refusal of service left me with no options. What happened to "do no harm"? I know it's a doctor thing but do pharmacists have something similar? It just seems to me that this course of study, and this sort of service means you can't discriminate, because that's what it is. The people who need birth control are being discriminated against. Let's sue em!

**Edit - you know, I never even thought that my pharmacist might be judging me when I went and got my birth control, or went to pick up the Rod before it was inserted.. now I wonder...

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I do recall a pharmacy that was involved in some scandal because of this. It was the only pharmacy in a certain distance and refused to sell condoms or birth control or something like that. I believe their right to not offer this service was upheld, but the uproar caused them to fold and sell it.

I'll see if I can find the article... well so far can't find it but this article: http://www.washingto...d=moreheadlines discusses a pharmacy that doesn't sell candy, pop, birth control or "Plan B". Wow.

Honestly I'm not religious so you can ignore the following opinion but anyway... I think someone who is truly religious, and truly a good person wouldn't try and force their religion on you and be so intolerant. I don't care that their belief say no abortion. If I was raped I'm getting an abortion and i don't think I should die because they won't give me medication to help stop post-op bleeding. I don't care that they believe that sex = babies and that I'm not "allowed" to stop it. I believe that even christians masturbate. How can it be okay to get rid of baby juice (eww :S ) How is only have sex when they're not ovulating not preventing pregnancy? Maybe God is MAKING you feel horny on specific days 'cause he wants a baby made. It's just ridiculously subjective.

Anyway I think it's stupid and I think it SHOULD be illegal. I wish I could think of a good argument but I can't because rationally I know that it's their right to refuse service (like some restaurants that have dress codes) and I don't have a RIGHT to medication/service, but what if none of my nearby pharmacies stocked medication I needed because they didn't believe in it? Could I sue the pharmacy if I was forced to order the drugs online and wasn't made aware of contra-indications and subsequently got seriously ill? After all, their refusal of service left me with no options. What happened to "do no harm"? I know it's a doctor thing but do pharmacists have something similar? It just seems to me that this course of study, and this sort of service means you can't discriminate, because that's what it is. The people who need birth control are being discriminated against. Let's sue em!

**Edit - you know, I never even thought that my pharmacist might be judging me when I went and got my birth control, or went to pick up the Rod before it was inserted.. now I wonder...

+1 -- to all of this.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Where do you draw the line? Can my emergency room doctor refuse to treat right wing nuts? How about the bad guy that shoots cops and is wounded himself? What about homosexual aids patients? Shouldn't society be able to say tough, if you choose to have certain occupations you leave your prejudices and religious biases at the door? But I know this is a difficult area, it would seem not to be reasonable to require active participation in an act of abortion for instance. But does the pharmacist have the right to refuse to dispense this medication or contraceptives? Should the convenience store clerk get to refuse to sell the customer condoms? Tough questions.

Not that I agree with what the pharmacist did...I don't. But it is interesting how it is always the SAME people that simply CAN'T find the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" in the constitution, no matter how hard they look...that CAN find the right to abortion, morning after pills etc. Not picking on you James, just that your post is in a long line of similar ones.

I am pro choice.

[james&olya 1,121]

Not that I agree with what the pharmacist did...I don't. But it is interesting how it is always the SAME people that simply CAN'T find the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" in the constitution, no matter how hard they look...that CAN find the right to abortion, morning after pills etc. Not picking on you James, just that your post is in a long line of similar ones.

I am pro choice.

I am pro-choice as well, but also pro-life. I believe in the value, 'sanctity' if you want to call it that, of all human life. But I recognize that is a moral belief and in a free country we are all free to determine morality individually. I don't think there is any 'right' to an abortion, but I do believe in the right of privacy and I don't see where the government has a legitimate basis for interfering in this private decision. They are not protecting any 'person's' rights here as personhood has not been legally established for the fetus. Seems clear cut to me.

I don't want to try and take away the 2nd amendment. But the area is as controversial now as when it was written over 200 years ago. Why do you think the wording is so odd? There was disagreement then also and so an ambiguously worded statement allowed people with differing viewpoints to think they had 'won'. I think the real disagreement that most people have is just with the degree of restriction on that right states may enact. The supreme court has ruled repeatedly that the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. While there are a very few on the left that may advocate removing all arms from the citizenry, this is not shared by any significant number of people. The opposite view, that there should be NO restriction, seems to enjoy more support among the 2A crowd. Even on here I have engaged rhetorically with people (hello Slim ) that are unwilling to admit that restrictions are constitutionally permitted and logically necessary. I doubt we actually disagree on very much of substance. But when the debate does not go beyond slogans and epithets one would think we are 180 degrees apart!

[james&olya 1,121]

Not that I agree with what the pharmacist did...I don't. But it is interesting how it is always the SAME people that simply CAN'T find the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" in the constitution, no matter how hard they look...that CAN find the right to abortion, morning after pills etc. Not picking on you James, just that your post is in a long line of similar ones.

I am pro choice.

Oh, I forgot to point out that the term 'well-regulated' is also there in that single sentence of the 2nd amendment!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Oh, I forgot to point out that the term 'well-regulated' is also there in that single sentence of the 2nd amendment!

If you will read the Supreme Court explanation in "Heller" it all becomes clear. There is no ambiguity about it.

That said, I am also "pro-life" in my personal choices, but do not inflict my beliefs on others. Therefore I believe other people can make their own choices, whether it be to have an abortion or to be armed.

Say hello to me also. I am not willing to admit that ANY restrictions on the "nd amendment are constitutional. That there are some, does make it so. Chicago banned the ownership of handguns for more than 30 years before it was declared unconstitutional. The fact is, it was always unconstitutional. The fact that there exists some restrictions only means they have not yet been declared unconstitutional. The NRA is systematically pursuing one case after another to dismantle these travesties. So far they have been successful 100% of the time. I am cond=fident and I am patient. we have alreadsy reached the point where there will be NO more new laws restricting our right to bear arms.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Gary and Alla