RWN pharmacist tries to kill a patient

[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!

Keep in mind that the NRA approach is very systematic and planned. Heller (2008) was intended and brought before the court to establish that the 2A WAS an individual right, not a collective or government right. The case determined that it WAS the right of individual people, NOT "the militia". Heller succeeded in determining exactly that. It was never challenged in Heller whether the right extended to states, that was not the question asked or answered. it was not the intent. Why anyone would still attempt tp debate the wording of the right is mind boggling. The highest authority on our land has settled it. Gun haters cheered that Heller did not "apply to states or localities" and Obama was still singing that song during the 2008 campaign.

Spoke too soon. McDonald (2010) was brought to determine that the 2A, like other rights, also extends to the states and localities. It did that. It struck down the handgun ban in Chicago that had been there 30 years, and also in Skokie, Morton Grove, Glencoe and Highland Park, not to mention dozens of other cities all ruled unconstitutional at the same time. It was the wet blanket on whatever the gun haters held onto after Heller.

Now, with those two KEY building blocks firmly laid, each and every other form of gun law can be challenged. One at a time in the most effective order. It is definitely something that needs strategy and careful placement for maximum affect. NRA members have been following the progress. In addition to these major victories, it has also been ruled that HUD cannot forbid firearms ownership in public housing, states cannot confiscate firearms in an "emergency" as they did in New Orleans following hurricane Katrina, and many other landmark decisions. That they are not well covered in the media is fine with me. The media is largely gun haters and gives little coverage to gun owner victories. Good. You may think..."Oh big deal". I assure you, it IS a big deal...or will be.

I would imagine that things like magazine capacity bans will be one of the last things to be challenged. Even assault weapons will not be next. The next step will be to determine that the provision requiring a person be age 21 to buy a handgun is unconstitutional. It will be successful. 18 year olds are legally liable in every other aspect of life, and can serve and die in the military, but cannot buy a handgun? Each ruling will lead into another. One by one.

[james&olya 1,121]

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.

So do you believe that the individual must be allowed to own mortars, grenade launchers, rpg's, heavy artillery pieces, etc? And some could even extend the logic here to the absurdity of ownership of suitcase nukes! Obviously a line must be drawn somewhere! The question is where. What do you advocate?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

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.

From a religious perspective, some may not feel they are forcing their religion on anyone. For instance, someone wants a prescription for RU486 and the pharmacist is religious. They may opt out simply because they do not want to be personally responsible for the killing of a fetus. That's why I support the pharmacists right to opt out.

No one should be forced to do something they feel is unethical unless it is a life and death medical situation.

[Ban Hammer 13,475]

18 year olds are legally liable in every other aspect of life, and can serve and die in the military, but cannot buy a handgun?

17 year olds can do that too, with parental consent to enlist.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

From a religious perspective, some may not feel they are forcing their religion on anyone. For instance, someone wants a prescription for RU486 and the pharmacist is religious. They may opt out simply because they do not want to be personally responsible for the killing of a fetus. That's why I support the pharmacists right to opt out.

No one should be forced to do something they feel is unethical unless it is a life and death medical situation.

I agree no-one should be forced BUT I can't help feeling... it's their job and they shouldn't be pushing their personal beliefs into a professional situation. That's why I said I wish I could find a rational explanation for how I feel, because on the one hand I think they have rights too, and on the other I think it's unfair to the patients.

The thing is, the pharmacist took a course that meant they dispense medicine. They took the course (in most cases) know that birth control exists and that they may need to dispense it, they studied and took the course regardless. It's likely they took the course to help people and by refusing service they aren't. The pharmacist didn't prescribe the medicine, the pharmacist isn't taking the medicine, the pharmacist isn't "personally" responsible for anything except providing a service. They are withholding medical treatment because they feel that their religious view is more important than someone else's view (religious or not) and because they think that they know everything. They didn't read the patients file and KNOW why it's being prescribed. They don't know the ins and outs of that persons life and why they need a certain thing. I knew a girl once that if she didn't take birth control she would bleed to death if she menstruated (had her period). I know a few people that have been raped and I know that "Plan B" saved their sanity just that little bit extra.

0

Another example. Sometimes lawyers, doctors or psychiatrists know things that other people don't know. There are some situations in which "doctor-patient confidentiality" may be breached, but the rest of the time the lawyer must still defend the criminal to the best of his/her ability, the Doctor must still save the life of the murderer, and the psychiatrist must still try his best to help the people with their issues. I'm sure some of these things could breach a persons religious beliefs yet these people do their JOBS and leave their personal beliefs at the door.

A more extreme example. Some people are racist. I don't think it's right but they are. If a person walked into the store of someone who is racists against the particular race of that person (lets say black man into a white persons store) the store clerk is NOT allowed to refuse service simply because they have their beliefs that black people aren't as good as "whites". What about the 10 commandments? That's religious, so then does the pharmacist have a right to refuse service to different religions, or adulterers, or people who blaspheme, thieves etc because those are part of their religious beliefs?

The more I think about it the more I think they shouldn't be allowed to. They provide a service. If they don't WANT to provide the service then they can quit. Just like docs and all the rest have rules and regulations, the pharmacists should be held to the same standard. I shouldn't be judged for having my beliefs (or lack thereof) and by refusing to serve me because I'm responsible enough to use birth control to stop having children I can't possible support at this time in my life, they should be heavily fined. It's just not right. Birth control isn't just for pregnancy prevention, the pharmacist has no right to my medical history and I don't have to tell them why i need the medication. If a doctor prescribes it, then issue it, it's your job.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

No one should be forced to do something they feel is unethical unless it is a life and death medical situation.

Just to cover this point specifically, the pharmacist has no right to my medical records. In the article the person needed meds for post-op bleeding. The pharmacist refused to issue it if it was because of an abortion. I don't need to tell them what it's for, my doctor knows what it's for and that's sufficient. They should just be doing their friggen job and stop pushing their belief onto me that abortions are wrong. I don't care if they think they're wrong, has nothing to do with this particular medication. It wasn't used JUST for post-op abortions. The pharmacist was basically trying to blackmail the person into telling what their medical info was before issuing the meds. Completely unethical

[tmma 467]

Since when can the staff at Walgreens start inquiring about why the med is prescribed? #######. I wouldn't even tell them...It's none of their bloody business! It's like those gatekeeper receptionists at the doctors ' why do you need to see a doctor?'

' because I don't feel well'

' what's wrong?'

' i don't feel well, I need to see a doctor and you don't need to know anything else'.

The pharmacist should either fill the prescription or find someone that will for the person in the OP. Whatever else is none of his biz.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So do you believe that the individual must be allowed to own mortars, grenade launchers, rpg's, heavy artillery pieces, etc? And some could even extend the logic here to the absurdity of ownership of suitcase nukes! Obviously a line must be drawn somewhere! The question is where. What do you advocate?

The only thing absurd is the gun haters speed at which they run to the "nuclear option" It is a clear sign of losing and I do not participate in nonsense. I am perfectly comfortable with the Supreme Court's decisions so far, and those to come. You are not. I am perfectly comfortable with THAT situation also. I am perfectly comfortable with our country's system of government to determine what our rights are. So far, so good.

Assault Weapons bans will be struck down. They will not be the next to go. The next to go will be the absurd age restrictions. Imagine if you will (if you can) laws restricting any other action to age 21. Imagine a law restricting abortion to people age 21 or over. Owning a home, a car, buying prescription narcotics, getting married. You can even buy assault weapons at age 18, but not a handgun. As I said, the laws will be systematically dismantled. McDonald was filed 1 dat after Heller. Others were filed 1 day after McDonald. Several have been decided in our favor at lower level courts and are not being challenged further. Another sign that Heller and McDonald are having far reaching effects.

I do not agree to ANY restriction of our rights. I am a supporter of civil and constitutional rights. I concede nothing. -0-. zilch, nada, HET! I believe "shall not be infringed" means shall not be infringed.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Since when can the staff at Walgreens start inquiring about why the med is prescribed? #######. I wouldn't even tell them...It's none of their bloody business! It's like those gatekeeper receptionists at the doctors ' why do you need to see a doctor?'

' because I don't feel well'

' what's wrong?'

' i don't feel well, I need to see a doctor and you don't need to know anything else'.

The pharmacist should either fill the prescription or find someone that will for the person in the OP. Whatever else is none of his biz.

It isn't. And it is not Walgreens policy either.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

17 year olds can do that too, with parental consent to enlist.

True...with parental consent. 17 year olds are not contracturally liable and not considered "adults" in the law. If they want to make it legal for 17 year olds to buy handguns, it is fine with me. It would be hard to build a Supreme Court case on it though. I would rather win a case eliminating that restriction than lose a case trying to get 17 year olds included.

This will be a very important case. Not because of age, but because it asks if laws can be arbitrarily and capriciously applied to firearms ownership. What is the REASON that you have to be 21 to buy a handgun? It makes the case that this law is "just because" and it is an excellent point to attack. Excellent point. How CAN the Supreme Court rule that an 18 year old is not entitled to the use of something they have rules is his RIGHT? It will be another building block. If the government (and it now is clear that it applies to states and localities as well, thanks to McDonald) cannot arbitrarily apply an age restriction to a certain class of firearm...how can they arbitratily apply a magazine capacity restriction? magazine capacities are not included in the age restriction case, but this will lead into that later.

One by one.

[tmma 467]

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.

OMG.

What if the pharmacist is a scientologist or something and refused to fill Xanax or whatever?

It's going too far IMO. OK if the privatly owned pharmacy store owner does not want to stock condoms or the day after pill whatever it is.....but- a Walgreens pharmacist refusing to fill a doctor's prescription because it violates their conscience......? I am assuming that the Walgreens pharmacy in question actually had a stock of the drug needed and the pharmacist was working less than 20ft away from it day in and day out.....I am imagining she never had a decent night's sleep all the time working there her conscience must have been needling her so much......

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Just to cover this point specifically, the pharmacist has no right to my medical records. In the article the person needed meds for post-op bleeding. The pharmacist refused to issue it if it was because of an abortion. I don't need to tell them what it's for, my doctor knows what it's for and that's sufficient. They should just be doing their friggen job and stop pushing their belief onto me that abortions are wrong. I don't care if they think they're wrong, has nothing to do with this particular medication. It wasn't used JUST for post-op abortions. The pharmacist was basically trying to blackmail the person into telling what their medical info was before issuing the meds. Completely unethical

Oh I agree with you regarding the OP.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Just to cover this point specifically, the pharmacist has no right to my medical records. In the article the person needed meds for post-op bleeding. The pharmacist refused to issue it if it was because of an abortion. I don't need to tell them what it's for, my doctor knows what it's for and that's sufficient. They should just be doing their friggen job and stop pushing their belief onto me that abortions are wrong. I don't care if they think they're wrong, has nothing to do with this particular medication. It wasn't used JUST for post-op abortions. The pharmacist was basically trying to blackmail the person into telling what their medical info was before issuing the meds. Completely unethical

I agree with your rights to privacy and what the pharmacist did was wrong. But where ARE these rights you speak of? Where IS the right to security in medical records? By which principal can you say that the pharmacist "has no right"? Well, by an interpretation of the 4th amendment to the Bill of Rights, of course. There it is right there, clear as...mud?

Yet people will just roll over and pretend there is no 2nd amendment, that it doesn;t mean what it says and what it has been determined to say by the supreme court and then they will act SURPRISED (OMG! OH NO!) when someone comes along and arbitrarily infringes on another right you have.