Pharmacists Sue Over Emergency Contraception Rule

[Aqua]

(SF)

Original Story Here (http://www.kirotv.com/news/13763036/detail.html)



SEATTLE -- Pharmacists have sued Washington state over a new regulation that requires the sale of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after pill" and sold under the name Plan B.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court here, a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists say the rule that took effect Thursday coerces them into "choosing between their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs."

The state ruled earlier this year that druggists who believe emergency contraceptives are tantamount to abortion can't stand in the way of a patient's right to the drugs.

The state's Roman Catholic bishops and other opponents predicted a court challenge after the rule was adopted, saying the state was wrongly forcing pharmacists to administer medical treatments they consider immoral.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed Wednesday are pharmacists Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen, and Stormans Inc., the owners of Ralph's Thriftway in Olympia, a grocery store that includes a pharmacy.

The owners of Ralph’s Thriftway said that for moral and religious reasons they oppose the use of Plan B pill because it interferes with the growth of a fertilized egg.

Gov. Chris Gregoire did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Associated Press.

Plan B emergency contraception is a high dose of the drug found in many regular birth-control pills and can lower the risk of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

Some critics consider the pill related to abortion, although it is different from the abortion pill RU-486 and has no effect on women who already are pregnant.

The federal Food and Drug Administration made the morning-after pill available over the counter to adults in August.

Under the new state rule, pharmacists with personal objections to a drug can opt out by getting a co-worker to fill an order. But that applies only if the patient is able to get the prescription in the same pharmacy visit.

Pharmacies also are required to order new supplies of a drug if a patient asks for something that is not in stock.

Pharmacists are also forbidden to destroy prescriptions or harass patients, rules that were prompted by complaints from Washingtonians, chairwoman Rebecca Hille said.

[wyndhy]

it’s kinda tricky. i can understand they're loathe to make anything available that may go against their nature and beliefs. after all, it’s not as if we require doctors to perform abortions, or practice any form of medicine for that matter; they choose their fields on their own. but i think it's a sign of the times that most doctors are open minded, normally withholding judgement and just providing treatment or a service. it wasn't always that way. they have come to be a mostly progressive lot and have sort of evolved the hippocratic oath to mean do not judge as well as do no harm. in a way, they have been policing themselves to keep pace with society’s value changes, and although a pharmacist's duties are not totally dissimilar to a medical doctor's, they haven't necessarily taken on the "public servant" role that so many doctors have, and they don’t have that ever important oath that would bully, cow or shame them into providing a wanted or needed service. if we allow arbitrary moral judgement by such a powerful branch of community for any drug (after all, the drugs they provide us can be life-saving as well as just life-improving), then we must allow it for all drugs, and i don’t think i’m willing to let joe doper at the pharm-aide down the street start deciding to withhold drugs i’m taking because he finds them or me morally reprehensible.


i feel for ya, i really do, but when it comes down to it you don't a.) have the training (or my permission) to override what a doctor has decided is good or bad for my body, or b.) the right to heave your morality onto my shoulders.

[Lilith]

A christian police officer/fire fighter can not decide to not save/help a family in crisis simply because they have a wiccan symbol on their front door.

Do your fucking job. I can't preach to my students or tell them their beliefs are right or wrong cause it's not my fucking job.

[jseal]

Well, keeping in the vernacular ...

It is not the State’s fucking job to compel its citizens to perform actions which they do not wish to do.

Keep the State the fuck out of the private lives of its citizens.

At least that is what the Constitution sets out as a goal.

[Scarecrow]

Well, keeping in the vernacular ...

It is not the State’s fucking job to compel its citizens to perform actions which they do not wish to do.

Keep the State the fuck out of the private lives of its citizens.

At least that is what the Constitution sets out as a goal.

But the Pharmacist choice to dispense drugs. They went to school to learn how to do it. And now they are refusing to do the job that they signed up to do. They also have a STATE lisence which gives the state the right to set regulations on that business.

[jseal]

Scarecrow,

That is NOT what THEY signed up to do.

That is what the State has passed a law COMPELLING them to do.

That, I believe, is the basis of the lawsuit.

[Scarecrow]

jseal,

They signed up to dispence medication that has been discribed by a liscened prescriber and they now refuse to do that job. Please have them leave their private views at home and not in the work place. If you did not want to do a specific part of your job would your boss say 'ok just let someone else do it'.

[Aqua]

Their job is to make sure when a Dr. prescribes medication that the patient gets the correct dosage for the needed amount of time. If they didn't want to dispense medication they should have chosen a different line of work.

*edit*
I was posting the same time as Scarecrow... LOL
Almost the same statement.

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

Before this gets out of hand, the State – or at least the Federal Government, does retain the right to regulate Commerce. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 ..: "The Congress shall have Power ...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

That being said, the notion that deeply held religious and moral opinions entitles individuals to special – even exceptional – handling has been recognized for many years. One need look no further than conscientious objection to serving in the Armed Forces in times of war to be reminded of this.

So yes, wyndhy is correct – it is NOT an open and shut // slam dunk // black or white issue. Read her post carefully.

[Lilith]

The difference is that a conscientious objector was being drafted not having chosen their own career path. If my pharmacist does not believe statins lower cholesterol enough to make dispensing them a good idea, due to their side effects and they refuse to dispense them he/she is overstepping his/her bounds and should be expected to complete his job as state licensing requires. If he/she refuses to dispense Plan B because he/she feels the religious side effects are too overwhelming he/she is again overstepping his/her bounds as he/she is neither a doctor or a clergy. He/she has the right to choose another line of work that does not cause conflict with his/her faith as in the case of conscientious objectors.


The federal government has approved this medication. It is time sensitive medication and for a pharmacist to deny someone their right to a medication (especially if it is available in the pharmacy) opens up their employers to unbelievable legal risk. I hope pharmacies will be careful when selecting pharmacists.

[jseal]

I need only point out that the rules of the game were changed after the pharmacists had made their career decisions, so the involuntariness of the situations are quite comparable. Given then that exceptions to the rules do occur, we might consider two principle concerns of Medical Ethics which will reviewed in the courtroom.

I think that many, if not most, people would agree that a medical practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. For example, if a pharmacist is aware that some a medication is contraindicated under some particular circumstances, and the patient presents compelling, or more problematical only a persuasive example of such a circumstance, most people would agree that the pharmacist would be justified in delaying dispensing the prescription until after review.

Take as an example the situation where a female pharmacist is aware that the FDA approval of new medication X was based upon studies conducted upon young males. Such was often the case until recently. Now if an elderly woman presents the prescription to be filled on a Friday evening to be filled, would it be unreasonable for the pharmacist - having a real concern for the welfare of the patient foremost, and having a strong suspicion that this prescription may not be the best for that patient – to insist on a review before filling the prescription?

If you can bring yourself to acknowledge that there exist situations where the immediate actions of a patient (“Please fill this prescription.”) may not be in the patient’s best long term interests, then the pharmacist can and should exercise caution.

There is a second, similar principle: "First, do no harm". In this instance, as the intent, object and goal of the prescription is to NOT induce a spontaneous abortion as does, for example RU-486, but only to prevent conception, then I believe that these objecting pharmacists’ are on rather shakier ethical ground than they may think. The purported death of the baby can not occur as a result of what the pharmacist dispenses, as the fetus is human following conception, not before.

On balance though, it is clear that there are grounds here for honest people to disagree. In democracies, when people disagree with the applicability of laws passed by the Legislature, they seek redress in the Judiciary, and that is what these aggrieved pharmacists are doing. If they strike out there then they will have to make some difficult decisions.

[WildIrish]

Do your fucking job.



Amen Sister!

Your morals and beliefs are not mine. If you're allowed to express your beliefs by not serving me...are you not denying me my morals and beliefs?

If I am required by law to obtain a prescription from an authorized location and the person working there refuses to fill the prescription...they are jeapordizing my wellbeing. How does the pharmacist know that a young lady's life might be in danger should she conceive? They don't. They're not supposed to know because they are not the doctor that prescribed the substance. They're the ones that are supposed to fill the prescription.

This is not a case of them being aware of some potential reaction between two medications prescribed to one individual, or them noticing that an inappropriate dose was prescribed. This is them refusing to provide a legal substance to a person who is authorized to obtain it.

It's kind of like a recovering alcoholic working as a cashier that refuses to sell beer to a person legally able to purchase it just because they themselves don't approve of it.

[jseal]

... If you're allowed to express your beliefs by not serving me...are you not denying me my morals and beliefs? ...
WildIrish,

That would be true only if YOUR morals (which are, after all, quite OK, otherwise you would have already corrected them) permit you to COMPEL and COERCE others to serve you.

[Lilith]

I don't compel or coerce, I demand.

[jseal]

Farewell freedom!

[jseal]

Welcome the Police State

[gekkogecko]

jseal: You're flat out wrong here.

It is unethical for a pharmacist to dump his bullshit idea of "morality" on a patient.

It is unethical for a religious fanatic to disguise him/herself as a health-care professional in order to compel a patient to confrorm to his/her idea of "morality".

A pharmacist has made a choice to go through the expense and hassle of the years of training it takes to acquire a thorough knowledge of pharmacology. Such trainig includes the fact that their job is to assist a patient in getting access to the drugs the patient and his/her doctor have decided are needed. To refuse to dispense necessary medicine, to CHOOSE to not act in the face of an impending threat to one's health is unethical.

To further choose to not act because the pharmacist is making that choice on a prejudgement of the patient's morals is not only unethical, but is in fact, a particularly hateful "morality" that is nothing short of destructive of other people's humanity.

Yes, I will repeat Lilith's words: do your fucking job. Yes, it is your job. If you wont' do your job, then get the fuck out of the business.

[jseal]

“I was just following orders.”

Hoo Hoo!

Where have I heard THAT ethical argument before?

:rolleyes:

[gekkogecko]

jseal: Is that a counter argument to what I said? If it was intended to be, then be advised:

It makes no sense, in that it is completely irrelevant to what I said.

If it was intended to be a counter argument to somebody else's reply, then please explain whose.

[jseal]

... Yes, I will repeat Lilith's words: do your fucking job...
gekkogecko,

Is that an order, or a demand?

[gekkogecko]

gekkogecko,

Is that an order, or a demand?

Irrelevant. Straw pharmacist should do straw pharmacist's job. We already know what that job is.

[jseal]

Irrelevant. Straw pharmacist should do straw pharmacist's job. We already know what that job is.
gekkogecko,

I find it interesting that you are comfortable expressing yourself in such a fashion. As a liberal, I become uncomfortable when I hear or read people express themselves that way ... (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/23/1082616316592.html?from=storyrhs)

[Scarecrow]

the SS officers that followed those orders were socialpathes in the first place just looking for a reason. Just like the child that puts a cat in the microwave or a person like serial killers.

[jseal]

While that may be true, the study referenced above (and repeated many times) fails to support that claim, and actually:

"... in Linsly-Chittenden Hall, and then later in a lab in Bridgeport, and then still later in replications all around the world, that 62 to 65 per cent of us, when faced with a credible authority, will follow orders to the point of lethally harming a person ..."

That is one of the reasons old-line liberals such as I are as enamored with free speach as we are. It may not be perfect, but it is far, far better than the alternatives.

"Shut the fuck up and get back to what I have told you to do ..." is all too easily a ticket to a disaster.

Let the pharmacists have their day in court. I bet that the Commerce Clause will withstand their challenge.

[Oldfart]

If I may butt in for just a moment.

There are a number of behaviours that the state compels of us regardless of our moral stance on pain of punishment. These vary from wearing clothes in public through payment of taxes and particular road behaviour to restricting our ability to harass and kill others.

Should a pharmacist be allowed to withhold medicines for STIs (you shouldn't have done that sonny because of the Commandment), Morphine for chronic pain (you'll get addicted to that and become a godless junkie) contraceptives (it encourages people to break the sixth commandment) or Methadone (you shouldn't have got hooked in the first place)?

If you find yourself in a job which conflicts with your morality, why should your customers who come to you in good faith suffer because of your conflict?

[Lilith]

OldFart you are soooooooooooooooooooooooo dead sexy & right :D

[Oldfart]

Smooth talking hussy.

[jseal]

Oldfart,

It is pleasing to see that we are at last getting to agreement. Yes indeed, laws & regulations change as society changes, and those which pass judicial review, as in all probability this one will, will help form a more perfect union.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that some people are unable or unwilling to have their prejudices challenged by others, but as one of the repo men who were taking Andy Cap’s sofa out the door said to the other when hit on the head by the thrown beer bottle,

“Sometimes you have to take the bitter with the suite.”

[Oldfart]

jseal,

I'll beer that in mind and go with the Flo.

[jseal]

Oldfart,

I miss that strip.

[Oldfart]

Me too.

I remember one where the policeman at the door says "Andy, you took the bus home last night."

Capp says, "So?"





























































































"The bus company want it back."

[jseal]

Careful! Don't let mayhem see this! :)

[Oldfart]

We'll quietly sneak down the back stairs and maybe he won't notice.

[Wicked Wanda]

Take the title of this post anyway you like.
I just saw this thread, and now I am in a really POOR FUCKING MOOD

jseal, at the risk of repeating points already made here.

1. Pharmacists are licensed by the State. (as am I, by the way) They are REQUIRED by law to perform their duties as outlined in State law and regulations. I too am bound by regulations. Not all of which I agree with, but perform as directed. And don't take that to too extreme an issue, as most of what I discuss disagree with is administrative, plus issues about inadequate patient to nurse care ratios.

2. The argument that this is a new issue
"I need only point out that the rules of the game were changed after the pharmacists had made their career decisions" is fallacious at the very FUCKING least. New rules as well as new meds and therapies, not to mention new uses of older meds become available constantly, even daily.

3. The rule violates their religious and moral beliefs.
If I accept your arguement, a pharmacist can refuse to issue AIDS medicine, pain meds, contraceptives, antibiotics, seizure meds, diabetes meds, cold and allergy medicine, for whatever moral reason he or she might decide.
This is not a stretch. I can easily create a religiously (not scientific) valid reason for withholding any of these therapies.

4. Causes death of a fertilized egg, thus ends a life.
BULLFUCKING SHIT!!! Who knows if there is a fertilized egg?
This med works in a number of ways.
It delays ovulation, preventing an egg from being available for fertilization.
It may temporarily STOP ovulation, having the same effect.
(remember that post intercourse there is viable sperm in the womb for several days, so this delay is very effective.)
It is THEORIZED that if there is a "free floating" fertilized egg, one that has not yet attached to the uterine wall and begun to grow and develop, the meds may irritate the lining of the uterus to the point where the egg can not attach. If there is already and egg attached, this med will HAVE NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER, as it is NOT an abortificent.

This issue is a pure political CRAP designed to instill more pain, antagonism and pure conflict between people, especially in those who don't understand the science, all for political gain (power)
How many of you knew that well OVER ONE HALF of all pregnancies, (some theorize as many as 75%) end in what is medically known as a "spontaneous abortion" or miscarriage? There's no deep, dark sinister aspect to this. Simply, that percentage of IMPLANTED fertilized eggs are defective, not viable, and REJECTED by the Womans' body, most often without her knowledge that she was ever pregnant. How many fertilized NOT implanted eggs are expelled? Many times the number of implanted eggs. Sometimes they simply never find purchase.
This raises doubt on the enitre idea that EVERY FERTILIZED egg is going to develop into a human child, doesn't it?
Do we next require that every woman of child bearing age be restricted to bed for several days or even weeks post coitus to ensure that any fertilized egg has the best chance of attaching and developing?

When a practitioner (and I have LOTS and LOTS of problems thinking of pharmacist as "Practioners of Medicine"- Yes, they are part of the family, but therapies are always BEST decided by the CLINICIAN who KNOWS, TOUCHES AND EXAMINES the patient) violate law and their own code of professional conduct, they must be prepared for the result.

There is a well known story of a local, VERY conservative MD who refused to perform emergency surgery on a woman who suffering a tubal pregancy, he refused to "terminate a fetus".
Small town, the only other doctor was brought in, but too late. She died, he went to prison, where, forgive me, I hope he suffered horrible pain and indignity for many years.

A pharmacist who refuses to prescribe the "MAP" should be liable for support for the child if one results from the sexual encounter.
Period.
(the father too, of course, but a child needs lot of support)

So:Put your money where your HALF FUCKING ASSED IGNORANT PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC BELIEFS ARE, RHONDA AND MARGO.

:rant:

WW

[jseal]

Fortunately for all of us, Judicial Review is the norm - not the exception. :thumb:

[Wicked Wanda]

Look again.
Previously Congress has attempted legislation that included a prophibition against any judicial review of the new law.
It was obviously unconstitutional, and the Federal Court threw it out.
The administration and previous Congresses have prevent judical review of status of prisoners, including Amercian citizens.
More recently the adminstration has directed the Washington DC Federal prosecutor to ignore any contempt charge brought by Congress.
Judicial review is the norm, huh?

WW

[jseal]

... It was obviously unconstitutional, and the Federal Court threw it out. ...
Wicked Wanda,

Excuse me for quoting you, but the event of the Federal Court throwing the legislation out because it was unconstitutional is what is referred to as "Judicial Review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States)".

As you said, look again. It really does work for ALL of us.

[jseal]

Wicked Wanda,

I am not altogether certain how to take your rant post, (post # 34), as you address it to me

... jseal, at the risk of repeating points already made here.
... but end it
... So:Put your money where your HALF FUCKING ASSED IGNORANT PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC BELIEFS ARE, RHONDA AND MARGO.
to the pharmacists.


Still, as you do seem to be responding to posts of mine in at least a few places, the least I can do is to respond where I seem to be the individual to whom you are directing your comments.

1. Pharmacists are licensed by the State ...
No arguments there. Being licensed however does not prevent the plaintiffs from challenging the licensing authority. At least not that I am aware of. Am I mistaken?


2. The argument that this is a new issue
"I need only point out that the rules of the game were changed after the pharmacists had made their career decisions" is fallacious at the very FUCKING least ...
No. It is not fallacious. It is because it is a new issue the pharmacists were entitled to file the lawsuit in question. They have legal standing (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm), which is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be affected by the law being challenged, and the controversy can be resolved by legal action. As the Federal court accepted that the plaintiffs have legal standing, I am comfortable in stating that you are mistaken.


3. The rule violates their religious and moral beliefs.
If I accept your arguement, ...
I did not make that argument.


4. Causes death of a fertilized egg, thus ends a life.
BULLFUCKING SHIT!!!
This is where you weirded me out. As I said the exact opposite, I must assume that here you have redirected your rant from me to the pharmacists in Washington State. Permit me to post the relevant portion of post #11.

... In this instance, as the intent, object and goal of the prescription is to NOT induce a spontaneous abortion as does, for example RU-486, but only to prevent conception, then I believe that these objecting pharmacists’ are on rather shakier ethical ground than they may think. The purported death of the baby can not occur as a result of what the pharmacist dispenses, as the fetus is human following conception, not before ...
Perhaps you overlooked that part of my post.

I hope your mood changes for the better.

[WildIrish]

Thank you, OF, for summarizing my thoughts in a much more coherent manner than I was apparently able to.

[WildIrish]

WildIrish,

That would be true only if YOUR morals permit you to COMPEL and COERCE others to serve you.


I'm not compelling or coercing...I'm simply calling upon someone to perform the service they claim to offer. If a convenience store advertises Hood milk at $2.39 per gallon, I expect to be able to purchase it without having to worry about the lactose intolerant vegan behind the register deciding for me that I shouldn't be drinking it.



(which are, after all, quite OK, otherwise you would have already corrected them)

Please explain this.

[PantyFanatic]

Please explain this.
:whack:


















:banghead:

[scotzoidman]

:whack:


















:banghead:

I'm sorry, sir, you have to move to the back of the line...

[WildIrish]

Oh stop!

I just didn't understand the reference. I'm not the brightest guy, you know.

[jseal]

WildIrish,

Reasonable questions. I shall respond to each separately.


I'm not compelling or coercing...I'm simply calling upon someone to perform the service they claim to offer. If a convenience store advertises Hood milk at $2.39 per gallon, I expect to be able to purchase it without having to worry about the lactose intolerant vegan behind the register deciding for me that I shouldn't be drinking it.

Staying with your example, the pharmacy in question wishes to continue to not offer the milk you wish to purchase. The State, through the policing arm of the licensing board is attempting to compel the pharmacists to offer the milk. If they continue to not offer the milk, they will be punished. Note that the only people being compelled to do anything are the pharmacists, and that they are being coerced into engaging in behavior, selling milk in your example, they wish to avoid.

Note also that in this scenario, the one which the pharmacists and pharmacy in question are advancing, you are not being compelled to purchase anything at all from the pharmacy. Nothing at all. This non-coercive relationship enables you, and others who share your POV to withdraw your business from this pharmacy and any other which fails to meet your standards, and rewards any pharmacy which does. Let us, for the sake of argument take as given that most people share your POV and not that of these “refuseniks”. What do you think will happen? The pharmacy in question will loose business proportionate to that fraction of the market which agrees with you. If you and yours are 100% in the right, the pharmacy will do what any rational business will do – it will stoke the products its customers want it to stock – or it will close its doors.

For an example that this technique works, you need look no further than at the time slot that Don Inmus used to fill.

I think this describes the position these plaintiffs have adopted – coercion is unnecessary. They (and seemingly their employer) feel that there is enough room for both positions. The particular legal technique they are employing, that Federal law supersedes State law, is the way that they feel will most likely rule in their favor.

[WildIrish]

Unfortunately, pharmacies are less frequent in my town than outlets that stock milk.

Perhaps I should just be thankful that the pharmacist endorses my lifestyle and graces me with his trade.

[scotzoidman]

Unfortunately, pharmacies are less frequent in my town than outlets that stock milk.

Perhaps I should just be thankful that the pharmacist endorses my lifestyle and graces me with his trade.
Wow, you don't have a Walgreens every three blocks? That is a small town...

[WildIrish]

Wow, you don't have a Walgreens every three blocks? That is a small town...


Don't make fun of my cow town! :p


We do have some modern amenities. Like the one Subway store and the brand new Dunkin Donuts. lol

[Lilith]

I come from an area where you drove for an hour to get to the doctor or the pharmacy. Should that pharmacist have a moral problem with giving me medication which is my right to obtain then I could drive the hour back and then another hour in the other direction to see if the other pharmacist had a problem with my physician doing their job. Funny enough, by the time I got home everyone in MY town would have already heard about my problem from the moral pharmacist.

[jseal]

Lilith,

!. Pharmacies which offer services not available at other pharmacies often advertise to that effect. "Open 24 hrs", etc. This is referred to as a competitive advantage.

2. Use the telephone. You will save a lot of money on gas.

3. You do not have a "right" to purchase drugs of this nature. The prescription entitles you to purchase them.

[Lilith]

JSeal,

1. Duh.

2. Kiss my grits:D

3. You missed the ! you used as a one when you edited your post.

[jseal]

The coercion model of social interaction does have its proponents. :(

[lakritze]

I can imagine a state where every service will be allowed to be given a person's "moral" consideration first. Some would have the right to discriminate in the apartments they have to rent,taxis could bypass a fare because the couple looks too "faggy." And God forbid,even lilith could decide who she wants to have languishing in her dungeons. I say,if it bothers someone to fill a priscription for the morning after pill,get out of the business.You are hired to serve patrons,not to choose what you will or will not do by considering your own feelings. Make about as much sence as a waiter who would refuse to serve a customer pork chops because it is against his religion.

[jseal]

Take the time to read the posts.

[Oldfart]

The essential question is whether the personal or corporate morality of a service provider should be allowed to dictate the supply of legal goods and services.

The issue is clouded with such questions as whether a 17 year old refused fuel because the vendor did not want to contribute to his statistically more probable death has been badly done by.

Refusal of a health product or service which has direct impact on the wellbeing of a person is unforgivable. Australia faced this recently when the sole pharmacist in a small town refused to supply unmarried girls with the contraceptive pill, forcing them to make a humilating trip to the next town . The dust is still settling.

[jseal]

The essential question is whether the personal or corporate morality of a service provider should be allowed to dictate the supply of legal goods and services ...
Oldfart,

No sir. I believe that is not true in this instance. At question is whether the Sate should be allowed to dictate this behavior of its citizens. It is to challenge this that the pharmacists filed suit.

Interesting! Perhaps this is where people are misinformed. If you return to the initial post, you may see that the what the pharmacists are attempting to do is to limit what the licensing board can enforce. I may be misreading this, but this suit does not attempt to do anything to anyone. The suit was filed to prevent one group from compelling another to begin doing something they wish to not do.

I expect the licensing board to win this one, but it appears to be a case of the citizens trying to limit the power of the State, not some bizzare imposition of their POV on anyone else.

[Lilith]

For me motive matters.

JSeal,

You are aware that not every post in this thread is addressed to you, right? I find it difficult to have a conversation when you feel the need to post a rebuttal to every single person who expresses their views.

[Lilith]

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 56
User Name Posts
jseal 22
Lilith 7
Oldfart 6
WildIrish 6
gekkogecko 3
Scarecrow 3
Aqua 2
scotzoidman 2
Wicked Wanda 2
lakritze 1
PantyFanatic 1
wyndhy 1

[jseal]

For me motive matters.

JSeal,

You are aware that not every post in this thread is addressed to you, right? I find it difficult to have a conversation when you feel the need to post a rebuttal to every single person who expresses their views.
Lilith,

I trust you will not be offended if I repond to a requset that WildIrish made.

[jseal]

... If you're allowed to express your beliefs by not serving me...are you not denying me my morals and beliefs? ...
WildIrish,

That would be true only if YOUR morals (which are, after all, quite OK, otherwise you would have already corrected them) permit you to COMPEL and COERCE others to serve you.

WildIrish,

I am commenting on the morals you refer to in your post. Morals address the question of how an individual should live in society. The principles directing right or appropriate conduct, if you will. We all have morals, and the lives we lead are the visible representation of those morals. Our day to day behavior displays or morals to everyone we meet, talk to, or work with. We observe the morals of others interact with them.

Interestingly, this daily exposition of our morals flatly contradicts the claim that morals cannot, or even worse should not be taught. We teach others about what we believe to be good – our morals – all the time, every day.

I assume that you believe that you live a morally acceptable life. I know no one who does not believe that – no matter that their behavior may differ from what I believe to be morally “best”. Whenever someone discovers that one or another of the moral principles which guide their behavior does not work well with the others, either the odd one out or the others get changed. People whose behavior falls within one standard deviation of the norm, the “average”, “normal”, or “regular old” folk, try to have a consistent set of morals. Having contradictory guidelines in one’s personal goal setting apparatus can lead to behavioral problems.

You asked the question “If you're allowed to express your beliefs by not serving me...are you not denying me my morals and beliefs?”. If you believe that to be a valid assertion, it would follow that your belief system – your morals – would be denied if someone did not do as you demanded. This is another way of saying that your morals found compelling and coercing others was acceptable behavior.

So, putting it all together. You asked me to explain the parenthetical aside in a prior post. I have tried to capture the post above. The part in question is “which are, after all, quite OK, otherwise you would have already corrected them”. The subject are the morals, which I believe you judge to be “quite OK”, or acceptable, because whenever you have thought them needing adjustment, you have adjusted them.

[Wicked Wanda]

Yes, jseal, I started off addressing the post to you.
I deliberately segued to a wide attack on all those refusing to serve their patients, their customers, and those who supported them.

"Legal Standing" is a very inexact thing.
I can sue anyone for almost anything. I might not win, like the FEDERAL JUDGE who sued for 4 million plus because he was unhappy with his dry cleaners. Someone, somewhere though he had "legal standing" to file his suit.

I must quote you and myself AND the original article here a couple of times.

I wrote:

3. The rule violates their religious and moral beliefs.
If I accept your arguement, ..."

You responded:

"I did not make that argument."

Funny, earlier YOU said:

"the notion that deeply held religious and moral opinions entitles individuals to special – even exceptional – handling has been recognized for many years."

oops?

let's quote the article

"In a lawsuit filed in federal court here, a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists say the rule that took effect Thursday coerces them into "choosing between their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs."

And

"saying the state was wrongly forcing pharmacists to administer medical treatments they consider immoral."

"The state ruled earlier this year that druggists who believe emergency contraceptives are tantamount to abortion can't stand in the way of a patient's right to the drugs."


You quoted me:
"4. Causes death of a fertilized egg, thus ends a life.
BULLFUCKING SHIT!!!"

You responded:

"This is where you weirded me out. As I said the exact opposite, I must assume that here you have redirected your rant from me to the pharmacists in Washington State. Permit me to post the relevant portion of post #11."

Yes, this was in regards to an unscientific statement made by the pharmacists, another thing I attacked.


Let's quote the article again.

"Pharmacists are also forbidden to destroy prescriptions or harass patients, rules that were prompted by complaints from Washingtonians, chairwoman Rebecca Hille said."

So it is OK for these pharmacists to impose their beliefs on patients?

That behavior goes 'way past "That is what the State has passed a law COMPELLING them to do."

Or what not to do?

THIS behavior is not resisisting "State control", this is literally "holier than thou" fanatics imposing their personal will on patients. This law in part is protecting patients from these fanatics.

"It is not the State’s fucking job to compel its citizens to perform actions which they do not wish to do."

(WTF!!!!!)

"Keep the State the fuck out of the private lives of its citizens."

Your'e mixxed up here hon.

A professional whose profession is licensed by the state IS compelled to follw State regulations. That is NOT the same as their private lives. This is their state licensed PUBLIC PROFESSIONAL life, NOT about what they do in bed, what they read, or what church they go to.

The State can COMPEL state licensed professionals to do a lot. Why are you unaware of this?
As an RN I am COMPELLED to work while straight and sober, keep my license in good order, fully document my encounters with patients, maintain adequate profciency in my manual skills, (IV, ACLS, CPR, etc.) and attend several score hours yearly of classes to keep my license. This applies to Pharmacists, as well as Doctors, Chiropractors, PA's and so on.
Even lawyers MUST pass the bar exam and have a license to practice law.
An Bug Exterminator is COMPELLED to keep proper records obtain proper training, and uses his chemicals in an safe acceptable manner.

Right or wrong, in medicine, we are considered "public servants" in varing degrees. ER Docs take care of EVERYONE who comes in.

Small town with five pharmacies owned by different companies is not the same as five towns with only one pharmacy in the area that all residents go to, which is a more accurate picture.
I am also now licensed to drive a car in Texas. I am a good driver.
I can drive safely over the posted speed limit. I am sure the State Patrol will understand your argument that the State should not be able to COMPEL me to drive a certain way to keep my LICENSE to drive.

A personal note. Some of you already know this about me.

I despise drunk drivers with a hatred you can not understand. I have performed more acts of contrition over this hatred than you would believe.
(one reason I quit the Catholic Chruch, but that's another story)
I almost loss my right to work as a nurse early in my career because I slapped a drunk driver. (he was rude and called me a nasty name, but still)

Last week I was working MEDSURG, and two, yes two of my patients were in the hospital for injuries incurred while driving drunk. Serious injuries. Others were hurt too, but no one was killed.

I can't refuse to care for them to the ABSOLUTE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND SKILL because of my hatred of them.
1. It would be LEGALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY unethical. The STATE COMPELS me to take care of everyone to the best of my ability.
2. I made up my mind a long time ago that to not always do the best job I can would be PERSONALLY immoral and unethical.

I would even take car of you, jseal

(((HUGS)))

Enough for this little girl, I's going to bed.
Alone.

WW

[jseal]

Wicked Wanda,

You may put down your sword madam. Lilith has clearly indicated that she wants me to stop posting to this thread. Last night I took the risk of responding to WldIrish’s request, but I felt relatively comfortable doing so as his request preceded her post. As she has the power to revoke my posting privileges, failure to obey may well result in punishment. Accordingly, I shall not post again to this thread. The debate has concluded.

[Lilith]

No, what Lilith clearly or not so clearly, indicated is that your behavior could be viewed by some (like myself) as rude. You continuously try to turn conversations into debates. You say, "the debate has concluded" while you have been told 34895792487287 times this is not a debate forum. Your posting shows that you purposely challenge people when they simply state their views. This is rude and frankly it makes people less likely to post. I've grown weary of you not getting it.

[Wicked Wanda]

(((Lil)))

Sorry for my part in this Hon.

linda

[wyndhy]

here’s what more i think. (if anyone actually gives a shit:p)

the aggrieved party, aka the pharmacists, have every right to challenge this. it’s that whole checks and balances thing.

to flip the sitch – if it was the licensing committee (or whoeverthefuck decides these things) that suddenly decided it was morally wrong to dispense the morning after pill because … say … the rule of government had taken the official stance that to interfere in any way with the stages of conception was tantamount to murder (hey, don’t scoff, it could happen) then i would hope there’d be doctors and pharmacists who would fight for changing that law. in fact, i know there would be. that’s why i can empathize a little. but i also think that what these pharmacists are doing is just another example of the “that’s not fair!” attitude that is so pervasive in this country these days.

boohoo. my feelings are hurt. the government must fix this for me. i want to be the squeaky wheel because it’s my right to be one. everyone must stand and take notice that i am unhappy and i have been offended. the media must shout my story to all, and all must say “good grief, how could we have been so thoughtless!?” and no-one may gainsay my right to challenge the government. the constitution says i can.

but just cause it’s your right doesn’t mean you’re wise to demand it. shit stirrers, that what they are. don’t wanna dispense the meds? then don’t, see how many people you piss off. find that your community backs you 100%? good for you, you’ve found a niche that you can settle into. piss off enough and you’ll have to close up shop or move somewhere else. and don’t be surprised if someone calls you on it and takes you to court. you’ve never had the right to flat-out refuse to fill a script before, so why do you think you should now? and just because you’re offended doesn’t mean you need to go tying up the courts, bitching about it. we all get offended sometimes, deal with it.

we’ve got to stop demanding and making policy that is based more on emotion and hurt feelings than logic, sustainability and objectivity.

aside: i can justify (what i think would be) a legitimate fight if the tables were turned because IF the tables were turned, the argument would be against imposing an emotional morality on reasonable behavior. unless a doctor or pharmacist sought to actually force an unwilling woman to take the morning after pill, there would never be the chance that one person’s moral judgement could ever interfere with another person’s request for medical care just because this pill is available. a much more logical and sustainable attitude.






and another aside. jseal, i'm surprised at you, and more than a little disappointed. you are well aware of the open attitude that pixies has. we may all disagree about things but i don't think anyone would ever get banned just for stating an opinion a mod disagreed with. i think you owe lil an apology for implying she would stoop to such petty behavior. perhaps i have overstepped my bounds here, or i am butting in, but there it is.

[WildIrish]

Is there anyone here that thinks I lead a morally acceptable life? ha ha

I know that it's not a group decision, but an individual one, but still...



look at me! I've posted 509 attachments here! And it might shock you people to know that a great number of them are pictures of my body in various states of undress.

And some show spoo. :p

At any rate, that's a topic for another thread.

[WildIrish]

i am butting in, but there it is.


Nice ass! ;)

[wyndhy]

wise ass! :D

[Oldfart]

Interesting ass-umption.

[Shadozfire]

Wow, I would never have expected this when I sent the article to Aqua. Thank you Aqua for posting it. Our society is very litigious and while I agree that the majority of the suits filed are frivolous, everyone is entitled to their day in court. Example: The judge that sued the cleaners for 67 million dollars for one lost pair of trousers! Now that was a waste of time, money and the courts efforts especially when they could have been presiding over a rape or murder case!

I do agree that my pharmacist should give me any drug that my doctor prescribes. The real issue is that in most states you do not need a prescription and can request it yourself. However as the FDA has approved this drug, I do feel that any female regardless of age or situation (God forgive having been raped or a victim of incest!) should be dispensed this medication.

And I agree that if we continue with the thought of them being able to pick and choose which meds to dispense, we will definitely be in an ASS-ININE situation. :booty:

[WildIrish]

It is a legal substance, and they dispense it. Taking my liquor store one step further, if you are of age and go into a package store wanting to buy a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue, they are required to sell it to you. Now whether or not it's a stock item is another question altogether. Liquor stores are not required to maintain an inventory of every possible product, and though I'm not up on pharmaceutical law, I would think the same is true. While package stores can choose whether or not to place a special order...I imagine pharmacies are required to place orders for non-inventory product. Perhaps that's the achilles heel of this situation. They can choose not to stock it, making it a "special order item" that would take a day or two to come in.

While I don't agree with the idea...it's legal, and I respect the law.

[wyndhy]

i have a solution. morning after pill, aisle 5, right between the formula and diapers and the prophylactics and yeast infection meds. unlike allergy meds, you can't make meth with these, so i don't really see a problem. :p

[Lilith]

In some of the grocery stores in my town they have a box sample of condoms out but if you want them you must go ask the pharmacist. Several grocery chains do not carry condoms at all. I hope if they refuse to stock condoms on the shelves they do us the favor of stocking Plan B in the pharmacy.