Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Pro-Life Pharmacies

Health Care Pro-Life Pharmacies 2008

  • Please log in to reply
323 replies to this topic

#281 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 27 June 2008 - 10:22 PM

View PostBroph, on Jun 27 2008, 04:44 PM, said:

View PostHibblette, on Jun 27 2008, 09:09 PM, said:

No Broph when you say that a person going into a Pharmacy is going to expect a car to be sold to them...that's an insult to mine and everyone else's on this boards intelligence.

Um, you obviously don't get the "Clerks" reference. The point is that people obviously know that pharmacies don't sell cars and even if they did, would be unlikely to have a '72 Pinto in stock. My example expects a level of intelligence.

Quote

I really don't think you understand what the pill does or even what the female cycle is all about.

Now that is dismissive! And what you said was an obvious attempt to get out of admitting that there are changes when you said that there were none.

Quote

The Birth control Pill is simply a preventative as far as the egg and the sperm meeting.

So it changes the way that things normally work. Thank you for admitting that again.

Oh my!  that emphasis just means so much!  Good grief.  You've been dismissive all through this thread.  

A pharmacist goes through the schooling he/she goes through for the people.  It is not about the money.  It's about the service for the people.  And this includes doctors and their wisdom for the patients that they see.  It also includes the patients who come to the doctors and say I don't want to have any more children (and unless you are a woman you have no idea what it means to have a child, physical is the express experience involved here) then he prescribes either the pill or some sort of deterrent.   Or a woman says I am tired of feeling like my life's blood is draining out of me everytime I have my menstrual cycle or it doesn't come in a regular way so that I can live a normal life in the day to day working world that we live in today.  

Again-I say study up on the pill it does not rewrite anything.  It doesn't change anything.  Women on the pill still will have their period.  You do not even understand what the process is.  All you can do is argue about how someone wants to buy a pinto in a pharmacy.

If you really wanted to argue about the pill in the fashion of what it is doing then you would be coming back and talking about how there is chances of breast cancer or other type risk.

But of course I would come back and say-all drugs run a risk.  So why even defend any pharmacist?  All drugs have some sort of effect on us.  

I never took the pill because I didn't want to run those risk.  But that doesn't mean I fault other women for using the pill if they didn't have a problem with that.

And ... if it helps women with an abnormal menstrual cycle then more power to it.  I am a woman and I know that is nothing to be dismissive about.  

These people are silly about the whole thing.  No where does their God which by the way seems to be the same God that I whole heartedly believe in says that we are suppose to have children till we can't feed them.

We are suppose to use our brains and realize there is a time to stop having the children and if our brains can come up with ways to do it other then abstencia (which actually goes against nature) then I say God meant for it to happen.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#282 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 05:35 AM

View PostDev F, on Jun 28 2008, 02:13 AM, said:

Those of you on both sides of this debate, I'd ask that you step back for a second and consider whether you're actually accomplishing anything by continuing to play the Who's Really Being Dismissive Game. It seems pretty clear at this point that neither side is going to concede, and you don't win a prize for being the last person to stop repeating the same argument over and over.

That's exactly what I said!

#283 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 06:16 AM

View PostHibblette, on Jun 28 2008, 03:22 AM, said:

Oh my!  that emphasis just means so much!  Good grief.  You've been dismissive all through this thread.

Hibs, as I've already pointed out, nobody has given me a single example of being dismissive. You've even brought things down a level by trying to attack me on word definitions, and failed. Add to this the fact that you, yourself have clearly been dismissive and it just makes your posts look childish.

Quote

A pharmacist goes through the schooling he/she goes through for the people.  It is not about the money.

Guess again. Pharmacists make over $60,000 a year; many job listings that you'll find put it in the $80,000 and above range. Why do you think my friend became a pharmacist?

Quote

Or a woman says I am tired of feeling like my life's blood is draining out of me everytime I have my menstrual cycle or it doesn't come in a regular way so that I can live a normal life in the day to day working world that we live in today.

Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. Why do you keep on making the argument that 5% of the women need when we're talking about 95% of the women who take the Pill who are saying nothing more than "I don't want to have babies". And why can't someone own a pharmacy and sell what they want and not sell what they don't want. I'm sorry, but you still have not supported your thesis.

Quote

Again-I say study up on the pill it does not rewrite anything.  It doesn't change anything.

Does it stop a woman's "life's blood is draining out of me everytime [she has her] menstrual cycle or it doesn't come in a regular way so that [she] can live a normal life in the day to day working world that we live in today"? It does? It changes her menstrual cycle?

And I ask again - why do you insist on playing these word games? That fact that you're wrong about a "change" has nothing to do with the argument and only makes your statements foolish, so why do you continue?

Quote

You do not even understand what the process is.

I will thank you to not make false statements about what I do and don't understand.

Quote

All you can do is argue about how someone wants to buy a pinto in a pharmacy.

I hate to break this to you, but most people understood the concept that I was bringing in my example.

Quote

If you really wanted to argue about the pill in the fashion of what it is doing then you would be coming back and talking about how there is chances of breast cancer or other type risk.

No; I wouldn't, because that has nothing to do with the reason that the owners of the pharmacies don't want to stock the Pill! They're not refusing to stock it because of health concerns; they're refusing to stock it because it goes against their beliefs! Unlike other people in this thread, I'm not going to try to make strawman arguments or ad hominem attacks to try to justify a position.

Quote

I never took the pill because I didn't want to run those risk.  But that doesn't mean I fault other women for using the pill if they didn't have a problem with that.

And these pharmacy owners aren't faulting women; they're simply not being part of a process in which they do not believe.

Quote

I am a woman and I know that is nothing to be dismissive about.

You keep using that word as if I actually was dismissive. Why not actually keep to the topic?

Quote

These people are silly about the whole thing.  No where does their God which by the way seems to be the same God that I whole heartedly believe in says that we are suppose to have children till we can't feed them.

OK, where do I begin on this? Saying that people are silly because they follow a different religion than you is dismissive and, to put it mildly, ignorant. Giving an argument that they're treating this as if "we are suppose(d) to have children till we can't feed them" is a strawman argument - it suggests that we're exactly one baby away from having so many children that we can't feed them and that everyone using contraception is trying to prevent that last baby.

The bible has many instances where God indicates that He does not condone contraception

Sodom and Gamorah

Genesis 28:3 "And God Almighty bless thee and make thee fruitful and multiply thee that thou mayest be a multitude of people"

Gen 38:8-10 "Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother.’ 9But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother’s wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother. 10What he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also."

1 Chronicles 25:5 "All these were the sons of Heman (E)the king's seer to exalt him according to the words of God, for God gave fourteen sons and three daughters to Heman."

Hosea 9:1 "Do not rejoice, O Israel; do not be jubilant like the other nations. For you have been unfaithful to your God; you love the wages of a prostitute at every threshing floor."

Hosea 9:11 "Ephraim's glory will fly away like a bird— no birth, no pregnancy, no conception.

Quote

We are suppose to use our brains and realize there is a time to stop having the children and if our brains can come up with ways to do it other then abstencia (which actually goes against nature) then I say God meant for it to happen.

Again, where to start? "God meant for it to happen"?! Are you speaking for God now? Can you show me where in the bible it says something about God striking down one man for spilling his seed, but sees another man doing the same thing and saying "Oh; it's OK; he and his wife are too old to have children, but I still want them to get it on"?

I'm sorry, but your post has got to be the biggest rationalization I've ever heard. And I've heard a lot of rationalizations.

#284 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 08:50 AM

Quoting the Old Testament is singularly unimpressive, Broph. That's the law that Christ was supposed to replace, remember? Might as well quote laws about not eating shellfish or not having sex with a woman that's menstruating or marrying your brother's widow if he dies. In the Christian belief system, the New Testament is meant to supersede the Old - except when it's convenient for Bible thumpers, who then revert to the old, tribal parts of the Old Testament to support their half-assed beliefs.

Besides which, God gave us brains to use. I don't think he expects us to stop developing medical ways to solve old problems.

And I don't know where you got the 5%, but think again. There are a lot of women who can no longer conceive who have to take the damn things. And they're a lot more than 5% of women.

I have rosacea, and I happen to have a form of it in my eyes far worse than most people with the disease. Bad enough before I started menopause, but a hot flash triggers the rosacea, which aggravates the eye problems. Bad news. I've been taking what you call BC pills for a lot longer than I'd like. There are risks of some kinds of cancer that go down when you take estrogen, and your risk of breast cancer goes up. Can I stop right now? No.

Enough women here have given you anecdotal evidence that would suggest to anyone who was really listening that a lot more women take birth control pills for reasons other than conception that it ought to suggest to you that you're working from a faulty premise. It won't, I'm sure.

But I'll tell you this - if I were to walk into a pharmacy and be told by some *a$$h*le that he wouldn't fill my prescription, I'd make it my business to complain to every professional association who would listen, and make sure the jerk lost his job. Because it spirals outward from there - the next time the same so-called God-loving intolerant *a$$h*le might decide not to fill my prescription for pain meds because there's a possibility I might kill myself with them. Or any other prescription that they've decided in their half-assed way doesn't suit their ideology.

I have no problems with their ideology - but don't become a pharmacist and start playing God. If you want to do that, go to medical school. ;)
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#285 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 09:17 AM

This argument over semantics is one for the books.  Wacky.  No change?!

"The pill" arrests menstruation.  Traditionally women cease taking the hormones (or are given sugar pills so one's habit remains intact) for one week out of four and flow again.
In recent years monthly, or every third month injections have become available, as well as doctors prescribing The Pill with instructions to take continuously the active doses (for various medical reasons), or at much longer intervals than 3 weeks at a time.
There's even a skin patch now btw.

So strictly speaking The Pill and it's variants changes the body's operation - it stops a female body process/function.
It is the practice of intake and cessation that regulates things.

Carry on.

I'm cold Howard.jpg


#286 Themis

Themis
  • Islander
  • 6,544 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 09:36 AM

View PostRhea, on Jun 28 2008, 01:50 PM, said:

Enough women here have given you anecdotal evidence that would suggest to anyone who was really listening that a lot more women take birth control pills for reasons other than conception that it ought to suggest to you that you're working from a faulty premise. It won't, I'm sure.

But I'll tell you this - if I were to walk into a pharmacy and be told by some *a$$h*le that he wouldn't fill my prescription, I'd make it my business to complain to every professional association who would listen, and make sure the jerk lost his job. Because it spirals outward from there - the next time the same so-called God-loving intolerant *a$$h*le might decide not to fill my prescription for pain meds because there's a possibility I might kill myself with them. Or any other prescription that they've decided in their half-assed way doesn't suit their ideology.

I have no problems with their ideology - but don't become a pharmacist and start playing God. If you want to do that, go to medical school. ;)

What Rhea said.

And Scott, I'd like some citations to any laws or professional ethics that say a pharmacist can overrule what a doctor prescribes for a patient.  That seems totally illogical.  If a pharmacist overruled what my doctor prescribed, all my prescriptions would be transferred to another pharmacy as fast as I could go.  For me that's five within a mile; others might not be so fortunate.
Cats will never be extinct!

#287 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 09:58 AM

View PostBroph, on Jun 28 2008, 06:16 AM, said:

View PostHibblette, on Jun 28 2008, 03:22 AM, said:

Oh my!  that emphasis just means so much!  Good grief.  You've been dismissive all through this thread.

Hibs, as I've already pointed out, nobody has given me a single example of being dismissive. You've even brought things down a level by trying to attack me on word definitions, and failed. Add to this the fact that you, yourself have clearly been dismissive and it just makes your posts look childish.

You're the one that brought auto sale into the conversation.  And you said rewrite.  It doesn't rewrite anything.  

First I have to ask-do you believe that if someone wants to say "I only serve White Peope" then they have that right?  Because this is really akin to that more then your Auto analogy.

Believe it or not back in the day of the Crow laws some of it was based on religion.  Those idiots truly believed that God wanted us to be separate.  

Now I will clarify something here-change in a biological fashion means biology changing.  A womans bodily function (nor any of the parts in the reproductive system) they do not change with the taking of the pill.  Everything is still there waiting to happen until after the last pill in her prescription for that month (and now for the three or four month) is taken and then the bleeding starts.  Nothing changed.

And by the way if we did not have contraceptives and people weren't careful about having babies all the time we would have a lot more economical, environmental and political issues then we already have.  There are issues about the worlds population today and the country's that have some of the worst problems are the ones that are not controlling their populations.

Most of your quotes from the Bible were from the old covenant-as a Christian I will tell you that is not what we go by.  When Jesus came and then arose all people were brought into the fold and this includes those of us that like our ham.

But...those passages in the old covenant are for a more primitive people who were needing to increase their numbers.  We are not a primitive people needing to increase our numbers.  We are needing to use our brains (that God made sure we had) and catch on to the fact that things have...wait for it...changed.

Edited by Hibblette, 28 June 2008 - 09:59 AM.

"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#288 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 10:09 AM

View PostThemis, on Jun 28 2008, 09:36 AM, said:

View PostRhea, on Jun 28 2008, 01:50 PM, said:

Enough women here have given you anecdotal evidence that would suggest to anyone who was really listening that a lot more women take birth control pills for reasons other than conception that it ought to suggest to you that you're working from a faulty premise. It won't, I'm sure.

But I'll tell you this - if I were to walk into a pharmacy and be told by some *a$$h*le that he wouldn't fill my prescription, I'd make it my business to complain to every professional association who would listen, and make sure the jerk lost his job. Because it spirals outward from there - the next time the same so-called God-loving intolerant *a$$h*le might decide not to fill my prescription for pain meds because there's a possibility I might kill myself with them. Or any other prescription that they've decided in their half-assed way doesn't suit their ideology.

I have no problems with their ideology - but don't become a pharmacist and start playing God. If you want to do that, go to medical school. ;)

What Rhea said.

And Scott, I'd like some citations to any laws or professional ethics that say a pharmacist can overrule what a doctor prescribes for a patient.  That seems totally illogical.  If a pharmacist overruled what my doctor prescribed, all my prescriptions would be transferred to another pharmacy as fast as I could go.  For me that's five within a mile; others might not be so fortunate.

Well Themis what Scott is talking about is how Medications sometimes do not work well together.  And a lot of times Pharmacist are the ones that will catch this.

For example a man has three doctors.  His regular doctor, his Cardiologist, and then he even has a doctor at a hospital that he recently was taken to.  Suddenly he's acting very strange and out of the ordinary, some are thinking well he's in his 80's he's just old.  Then the family pharmacist is brought the prescription from the doctor at the hospital and the Pharmacist (who has on file) looks at all the other drugs the man is on.  He realizes the man is having a reaction to a combination.  Therefore he calls this Doctor and informs him.  The Doctor says-"Oh thank you" and then the man goes back to normal behavior.  

This actually happened to a friend of mine.

But the pharmacist didn't refuse because of religion-he refused because of the health of the individual.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#289 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 11:23 AM

View PostRhea, on Jun 28 2008, 01:50 PM, said:

Quoting the Old Testament is singularly unimpressive, Broph. That's the law that Christ was supposed to replace, remember?

Um, some things were changed, like going from "eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek", but Catholics do not pretend that there is no Old Testament.

Quote

Might as well quote laws about not eating shellfish or not having sex with a woman that's menstruating or marrying your brother's widow if he dies.

Actually, that last one you can do; the middle one is sometimes unpleasant and the first one is still held true by some people today.

Quote

In the Christian belief system, the New Testament is meant to supersede the Old - except when it's convenient for Bible thumpers, who then revert to the old, tribal parts of the Old Testament to support their half-assed beliefs.

And where in the New Testament does it say that birth control is OK? Nowhere? Ah.

Quote

Besides which, God gave us brains to use. I don't think he expects us to stop developing medical ways to solve old problems.

LOL; the thing is, I don't think God sees procreation as a "problem".

Quote

And I don't know where you got the 5%, but think again.

Lin gave that number. I've already stated that.

Quote

There are a lot of women who can no longer conceive who have to take the damn things. And they're a lot more than 5% of women.

And you've supplied numbers to back up your statement? No? And how exactly does it make it "right" for a person who takes drugs for one reason make it OK for someone else to take it for recreational reasons. Nobody has yet to give an actual explanation for this. They just keep throwing up these strawmen.

Quote

I have rosacea, and I happen to have a form of it in my eyes far worse than most people with the disease. Bad enough before I started menopause, but a hot flash triggers the rosacea, which aggravates the eye problems. Bad news. I've been taking what you call BC pills for a lot longer than I'd like. There are risks of some kinds of cancer that go down when you take estrogen, and your risk of breast cancer goes up. Can I stop right now? No.

Strawman.

Quote

Enough women here have given you anecdotal evidence

Anecdotal evidence has never been a reason for policy. The pharmacists can give you even more anecdotal evidence of women who want the pill to prevent pregnancy.

Quote

that would suggest to anyone who was really listening that a lot more women take birth control pills for reasons other than conception that it ought to suggest to you that you're working from a faulty premise. It won't, I'm sure.

And you're still not reading what I'm writing. I'm sure that women "need" the medication for certain problems, but the vast majority of women who take BC use it for its intended purpose. Since pharmacists can't tell which women are taking it for what reason, they don't carry BC in the first place; therefore, they're sure not to help prevent procreation.

Quote

But I'll tell you this - if I were to walk into a pharmacy and be told by some *a$$h*le that he wouldn't fill my prescription, I'd make it my business to complain to every professional association who would listen, and make sure the jerk lost his job.

1) Is language like that allowed on this board? Never did like the word "jerk"

2) If the person who made the decision is the owner, you won't get much satisfaction unless it's one of the few places that require it.

Quote

Because it spirals outward from there - the next time the same so-called God-loving intolerant *a$$h*le might decide not to fill my prescription for pain meds because there's a possibility I might kill myself with them.

There's that word again. And the nerve of someone who might be looking out for your health and welfare!

Quote

Or any other prescription that they've decided in their half-assed way doesn't suit their ideology.

What is it with the use of "ass" in your post? And who says that it's half-assed? How do you know that it isn't 3 quarters  assed or even full assed?

Quote

[I have no problems with their ideology

Ah, but you do. Clearly.

Quote

but don't become a pharmacist and start playing God.

Ah, but aren't women who use BC to prevent pregnancy playing God? Hmmmm.

Quote

If you want to do that, go to medical school. ;)

If only. If only.

#290 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 11:35 AM

View PostThemis, on Jun 28 2008, 02:36 PM, said:

And Scott, I'd like some citations to any laws or professional ethics that say a pharmacist can overrule what a doctor prescribes for a patient.  That seems totally illogical.  If a pharmacist overruled what my doctor prescribed, all my prescriptions would be transferred to another pharmacy as fast as I could go.  For me that's five within a mile; others might not be so fortunate.

What do you mean by "overrule", though? If a pharmacist finds a dangerous interaction, it's their ethical obligation to either not fill the prescription or to inform you of this before giving it to you. That's part of the job and the training.

#291 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 11:50 AM

View PostHibblette, on Jun 28 2008, 02:58 PM, said:

You're the one that brought auto sale into the conversation.  And you said rewrite.  It doesn't rewrite anything.

I brought in no auto sale. There was no sale. My example was of someone who wanted a car, but the example did not end in a sale. I said rewrite for those of us who have taken high school and college chemistry.

Quote

First I have to ask-do you believe that if someone wants to say "I only serve White Peope" then they have that right?  Because this is really akin to that more then your Auto analogy.

Actually, it's nothing like my analogy. In your analogy, the customer is being discriminated against because of their skin; something that is not going to change. However, in my example, the customer is not being discriminated against; they can buy anything that's available for sale in the store, but can't buy anything that is not available for sale.

Quote

Believe it or not back in the day of the Crow laws some of it was based on religion.  Those idiots truly believed that God wanted us to be separate.

Examples?

Quote

Now I will clarify something here-change in a biological fashion means biology changing.  A womans bodily function (nor any of the parts in the reproductive system) they do not change with the taking of the pill.  Everything is still there waiting to happen until after the last pill in her prescription for that month (and now for the three or four month) is taken and then the bleeding starts.  Nothing changed.

Of course it changed. You said yourself - "waiting to happen until after the last pill..." The pill changes when things happen!

"change in a biological fashion means biology changing" - that's called backpedaling.

Quote

And by the way if we did not have contraceptives and people weren't careful about having babies all the time we would have a lot more economical, environmental and political issues then we already have.

That's called a strawman argument.

Quote

Most of your quotes from the Bible were from the old covenant-as a Christian I will tell you that is not what we go by.

Christian or Catholic? Catholics definitely go by the Old Testament. If you pay attention to service the next time you go, notice that there are 2 readings during the service - one is from the Old Testament and one is from the New (the Gospels). The Old Testament is definitely not ignored by Catholics nor by Christians. Why do you think the Old Testament is in your Bible - to make it look like you're reading further along when you only read the New Testament? The New Testament is an addition; not a replacement for the Old Testament.

Quote

But...those passages in the old covenant are for a more primitive people who were needing to increase their numbers.  We are not a primitive people needing to increase our numbers.  We are needing to use our brains (that God made sure we had) and catch on to the fact that things have...wait for it...changed.

Oh, brother!

Edited by Broph, 28 June 2008 - 11:51 AM.


#292 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 12:01 PM

View PostThemis, on Jun 28 2008, 10:36 AM, said:

And Scott, I'd like some citations to any laws or professional ethics that say a pharmacist can overrule what a doctor prescribes for a patient.  That seems totally illogical.  If a pharmacist overruled what my doctor prescribed, all my prescriptions would be transferred to another pharmacy as fast as I could go.  For me that's five within a mile; others might not be so fortunate.

If a pharmacist overrules what your doctor prescribes, it should be because there is a sound medical reason for doing so.  You don't just go to one doctor, do you?  Most people have their PCP and various specialists -- so if one of your doctors prescribes a medication that is contraindicated when taking a drug prescribed by another of your doctors, it's the pharmacist's responsibility to refuse to fill one of those 'scripts so you don't die.  

How is that illogical???

In any case:

Quote

Accepted thinking condones the pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense based on professional judgement. It is specified in the pharmacy laws of many states that it is the pharmacist's duty to refuse to dispense if, in the pharmacist's professional judgement, the prescription does not seem to be valid, or if filling the prescription as written could cause inadvertent harm to the patient.
Source

I'm sorry, I'm not gonna look up the various state laws or codes.  If you don't want to accept what I'm saying, try asking your pharmacist the next time you're there.  S/he will tell you exactly what I am.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#293 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 01:52 PM

^ I don't go to any doctors, I go to an acupuncturist. But I would think that when you see a doctor or specialist you are asked what medications you are on are you not? Don't they ask if you are allergic to penicillin?

Sure things slip as Hibblette's story shows, but a pharmacist would need a cause such as what you indicated above to refuse to fill a prescription.
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#294 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 02:34 PM

BTW, regarding Christianity and the Old Testament

Quote

We could cite many reasons for the Old Testament being God's Word, but the strongest argument comes from the Lord Jesus Himself. As God in human flesh, Jesus speaks with final authority. And His testimony regarding the Old Testament is loud and clear.

Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). Notice that he mentions even the words and letters!

When dealing with the people of His day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: "Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?" (Matthew 22:31); "Yea; and have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou hast prepared praise for thyself'?" (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and "Have you not read what David did?" (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and He trusted it totally.

He confirmed many of the accounts in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot's wife (Luke 17:29, 32), the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Luke 11:51), the calling of Moses (Mark 12:26), the manna given in the wilderness (John 6:31-51), the judgment upon Tyre and Sidon (Matthew 1-1:21), and many others.

...

It almost seems as though Jesus was anticipating 20th century biblical criticism when He authenticated these accounts. The con-clusion is simple. If a person believes in Jesus Christ, he should be consistent and believe that the Old Testament and its accounts are correct. Many want to accept Jesus, but also want to reject a large portion of the Old Testament. This option is not available. Either Jesus knew what He was talking about or He did not. The evidence is clear that Jesus saw the Old Testament as being God's Word; His attitude toward it was nothing less than total trust.

http://www.greatcom...._06/default.htm

#295 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 02:38 PM

View PostGiGi, on Jun 28 2008, 02:52 PM, said:

^ I don't go to any doctors, I go to an acupuncturist. But I would think that when you see a doctor or specialist you are asked what medications you are on are you not? Don't they ask if you are allergic to penicillin?

Yes, absolutely, but relying on the patient to disclose all the medicaitons s/he is taking is a bad idea for many reasons: people have faulty memories, or simply don't want to disclose everything they're taking (especially if narcotics are involved), etc.  A pharmacist, on the other hand, has a record -- far more reliable.

Quote

Sure things slip as Hibblette's story shows, but a pharmacist would need a cause such as what you indicated above to refuse to fill a prescription.

I agree that if there's no professional reason, they're acting unethically and should be penalized, but Themis (and at various times, others in the thread) has put forth the argument that, if a doctor writes a script, a pharmacist has no right to *ever* refuse to fill it... and that's just crazy.  There are many occasions when the pharmacist doesn't just have the right but the responsibility to refuse.

Edited by ScottEVill, 28 June 2008 - 02:39 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#296 Themis

Themis
  • Islander
  • 6,544 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 03:29 PM

View PostScottEVill, on Jun 28 2008, 05:01 PM, said:

View PostThemis, on Jun 28 2008, 10:36 AM, said:

And Scott, I'd like some citations to any laws or professional ethics that say a pharmacist can overrule what a doctor prescribes for a patient.  That seems totally illogical.  If a pharmacist overruled what my doctor prescribed, all my prescriptions would be transferred to another pharmacy as fast as I could go.  For me that's five within a mile; others might not be so fortunate.

If a pharmacist overrules what your doctor prescribes, it should be because there is a sound medical reason for doing so.  You don't just go to one doctor, do you?  Most people have their PCP and various specialists -- so if one of your doctors prescribes a medication that is contraindicated when taking a drug prescribed by another of your doctors, it's the pharmacist's responsibility to refuse to fill one of those 'scripts so you don't die.  

How is that illogical???

In any case:

Quote

Accepted thinking condones the pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense based on professional judgement. It is specified in the pharmacy laws of many states that it is the pharmacist's duty to refuse to dispense if, in the pharmacist's professional judgement, the prescription does not seem to be valid, or if filling the prescription as written could cause inadvertent harm to the patient.
Source

I'm sorry, I'm not gonna look up the various state laws or codes.  If you don't want to accept what I'm saying, try asking your pharmacist the next time you're there.  S/he will tell you exactly what I am.

As I said in post 262:  

Quote

Of course they should check for drug interactions. Sure, they should check with the doctor to see if a generic could be used instead of a name brand. Those issues involve safety, and in both cases, it is the doctor's decision - the pharmacist asks the questions, the doctor makes the decisions.
   But it's still up to the doctor, who might well have told the patient to stop taking medication x while taking newly prescribed medication y if medication y was needed for a new or temporary condition.  The pharmacist could verify that with the doctor; the doctor may or may not have been aware that the patient had a current prescription for medication x and if the doctor still felt medication y was needed now, the pharmacist could relay that the patient should stop taking medication x.  In any event, it is the doctor's call, not the pharmacist's.  In rare cases, the doctor might even feel the interaction (if not likely to be lethal...) is worth the risk.  I've technically got current prescriptions for various things I'm no longer taking because we switched to a different med.  Which I or my doctor would happily tell any pharmacist who questioned mixing something with one of those I'm no longer taking,

For myself, I have everything filled at the same pharmacy, all of my doctors are at Vanderbilt and they all have access to my records and I carry a list of meds in my wallet for emergency purposes and for when I go to the walk-in clinic nearby for, recently, bronchitis and a 2nd degree burn (not at the same time).  So I think I'm covered.

As to the "valid" part, I'll give you that if the pharmacist suspects forgery, stolen prescription pads, etc.  Certainly another instance where a call to the doctor, or even police, is in order.  My statements all presume a patient filling a legitimate prescription for legitimate medical reasons.
Cats will never be extinct!

#297 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 03:43 PM

Quote

Lin gave that number. I've already stated that.

No Broph, that was not my number nor did I bring it up, you did in post 104



Quote

I find it interesting that people keep bringing up the point about using BC for pain control. What's the percentage there? 5%? 2%? Less? Why do you bring up the exception to try to support a rule?

And what if this pharmacy closed down because you don't like their stance on BC? Doesn't that mean that everyone else (who were perfectly happy), will have to drive 10-25 miles to get their Claritin, or Albuterol or any number of other medications that the pharmacist helps them with?

Quote

Strawman.

Dismissive

Quote

And where in the New Testament does it say that birth control is OK? Nowhere? Ah.

Where does it say it isn't okay? Nowhere

Quote

That's called a strawman argument.

I call b*llsh*t Broph. The Earth is already overpopulated, people are starving to death daily all over the world. Food shortages, gas prices soaring, pollution, families struggling to feed, cloth, educate and keep a roof over the heads of the 1 or 2 kids they have. What happens if they had 5 or 6 to care for.

Quote

Christian or Catholic? Catholics definitely go by the Old Testament. If you pay attention to service the next time you go, notice that there are 2 readings during the service - one is from the Old Testament and one is from the New (the Gospels). The Old Testament is definitely not ignored by Catholics nor by Christians. Why do you think the Old Testament is in your Bible - to make it look like you're reading further along when you only read the New Testament? The New Testament is an addition; not a replacement for the Old Testament.

So basically you're saying that the Catholic Church ignores the fact that the old testament was replaced by the new testament as a pact with gentiles?
Posted Image
Posted Image

#298 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 04:36 PM

View PostLin731, on Jun 28 2008, 08:43 PM, said:

Quote

Lin gave that number. I've already stated that.

No Broph, that was not my number nor did I bring it up, you did in post 104

I threw that number out off the top of my head. You confirmed it in Post 110

http://www.exisle.ne...p...t&p=1123295

To date, nobody in this thread has given any documented number.

Quote

Quote

Strawman.

Dismissive

Not at all; just pointing out that the argument was a strawman argument that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Quote

Quote

And where in the New Testament does it say that birth control is OK? Nowhere? Ah.

Where does it say it isn't okay? Nowhere

I already quoted where Jesus said that everything in the Old Testament is the word of God. God killed a man for spilling his seed. Why do you think it would suddenly be OK to spill seed after Jesus was born? That is a leap of logic the likes of which I have never seen before.

Quote

I call b*llsh*t Broph. The Earth is already overpopulated, people are starving to death daily all over the world. Food shortages, gas prices soaring, pollution, families struggling to feed, cloth, educate and keep a roof over the heads of the 1 or 2 kids they have. What happens if they had 5 or 6 to care for.

And is that the fault of the pharmacist?! Of course not! You may play free and loose with your religious convictions, but you have no right to tell someone else to do that. It's a strawman argument!

Quote

So basically you're saying that the Catholic Church ignores the fact that the old testament was replaced by the new testament as a pact with gentiles?

You have a very funny definition of the word "fact", seeing as the Old Testament was not replaced with the New Testament. Such a statement shows and incredible lack of understanding of The Bible. I already stated above that the 2 Testaments (within Christian theology) exist together.

#299 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 04:40 PM

Oh for god's sake, you guys.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#300 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 28 June 2008 - 04:45 PM

View PostScottEVill, on Jun 28 2008, 09:40 PM, said:

Oh for god's sake, you guys.

I know, I know, but I'm amazed at some of the things that are being said here - where are they getting this stuff?! It would even be one thing if they could back up any of the statements (like I do), but still...



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Health Care, Pro-Life Pharmacies, 2008

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users