conscience vs. career

[nehemiah]

so what do you think? should a doctor (or pharmacist) be allowed to refuse to treat a patient because of "personal reasons"?


More than a dozen states are considering new laws to protect health workers who do not want to provide care that conflicts with their personal beliefs, a surge of legislation that reflects the intensifying tension between asserting individual religious values and defending patients' rights.

About half of the proposals would shield pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control and "morning-after" pills because they believe the drugs cause abortions. But many are far broader measures that would shelter a doctor, nurse, aide, technician or other employee who objects to any therapy. That might include in-vitro fertilization, physician-assisted suicide, embryonic stem cells and perhaps even providing treatment to gays and lesbians.
...
"This goes to the core of what it means to be an American," said David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations. "Conscience is the most sacred of all property. Doctors, dentists, nurses and other health care workers should not be forced to violate their consciences."
...
"We are moving into a brave new world of cloning, cyborgs, sex selection, genetic testing of embryos," Stevens said. "The list of difficult ethical issues involving nurses, physicians, research scientists, pharmacists and other health care workers is just continuing to increase."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900869.html


on a side note: "cyborgs"? :rofl: oy vey.

[TRIPLE P]

Which one do I click to become a Cyborg?



Side note... my girlfriend/possibly ex.... worked for a place where she lived in a house with 6 young boys who's parents were in jail......anyway.... the health insurance provider was a christian run company and they refused to pay for Gyno visits because he talked to her about Birth Control.... they obviously wouldn't pay for the actual pills either...

[sukie]

Given those two choices (and the fact that physicians are bound by the hypocratic oathe therefore it doesn't apply to them) I have to vote yes.
This has happenedto me where I refused to traet a patient (sorry nodetails) because the treatment IMO would be harmfulbeyond helpful. Sticky but that was my "belief".One incident and that was it. Now....

As for healthcare workers. They should have the option to refuse but said employer also has the right to refuse to keep them employed as well. Pharmacies are usually corporate and there are usually more than one pharmacist. in the little pharmacies... this happensalot where they just tell the person... sorry we do not stock that drug. Some pharmacies don't stock some level3 narcotics.

[anEinherjer]

See, the nice thing about America is that, for the majority of people, you can CHOOSE which health provider you want. You want birth control, abortion on demand, etc? Go for it. You want a nice wholesome christian (dumbass) Doctor? Go for it.

That's what people _should_ be arguing for - the freedom to choose. Not to force one opinion on everyone. The libs want to force everyone in America to live under my first example, while the cons want the second. It's kind of pathetic in both cases.

[smaweet]

City doctors shouldn't be able to choose squat.

If a private pharmacy doesn't wish to carry morning-after pills, then they shouldn't 'have' to. Its their business.

[Meathead]

depends

to WORK in an environment that violates your conscience, of course

to refuse to provide standard medical treatment because of your conscience then no

iow if you have a problem with selling sex for money dont become a hooker

[anEinherjer]

Define "standard medical treatment".

Try to make your definition fit every provider on the planet.

[nehemiah]

See, the nice thing about America is that, for the majority of people, you can CHOOSE which health provider you want. You want birth control, abortion on demand, etc? Go for it. You want a nice wholesome christian (dumbass) Doctor? Go for it.bolded part is a huge snag.

[sukie]

Why?

[35Pete]

See, the nice thing about America is that, for the majority of people, you can CHOOSE which health provider you want. You want birth control, abortion on demand, etc? Go for it. You want a nice wholesome christian (dumbass) Doctor? Go for it.

That's what people _should_ be arguing for - the freedom to choose. Not to force one opinion on everyone. The libs want to force everyone in America to live under my first example, while the cons want the second. It's kind of pathetic in both cases.
I can't say more. Excellent post. To force people to do things against their conscience is soooo typically liberal.

[TRIPLE P]

I can't say more. Excellent post. To force people to do things against their conscience is soooo typically liberal.


Who can FORCE anyone to do ANYTHING... its not like they'll be held at gunpoint and made to kick pregnant women in the uterus....

But if someone works at a drugstore that carries Birth Control and a Pharmacist won't fill the script....fired...

It would be like a teenage catholic working the register at a gas station and refusing to sell beer, ciggerttes and condoms cause those things are "wrong"....they wouldn't have a job very long...

[35Pete]

Who can FORCE anyone to do ANYTHING... its not like they'll be held at gunpoint and made to kick pregnant women in the uterus....

But if someone works at a drugstore that carries Birth Control and a Pharmacist won't fill the script....fired...

It would be like a teenage catholic working the register at a gas station and refusing to sell beer, ciggerttes and condoms cause those things are "wrong"....they wouldn't have a job very long...
False analogy. Those are stupid examples that NEVER happen. The issues that we are talking about are about deeply held personal beliefs. You cannot force someone to do something against their conscience.

[TRIPLE P]

False analogy. Those are stupid examples that NEVER happen. The issues that we are talking about are about deeply held personal beliefs. You cannot force someone to do something against their conscience.


What do you mean false analogy.... its 100% valid... how do you know they never happen?

Birth control being wrong isn't a deeply held personal belief?.... what are these mysterious beliefs that you're talking about?

[nehemiah]

I can't say more. Excellent post. To force people to do things against their conscience is soooo typically liberal.you missed a sentence clause. please read it again.

[35Pete]

What do you mean false analogy.... its 100% valid... how do you know they never happen?

Birth control being wrong isn't a deeply held personal belief?.... what are these mysterious beliefs that you're talking about?
Trust me. Birth control has saved my ass throughout my frolicking career. I am so glad that it exists.

The invernter of condoms though should have been killed and his body tossed in a wood chipper.

And I am also Pro-choice too.

[TRIPLE P]

Trust me. Birth control has saved my ass throughout my frolicking career. I am so glad that it exists.

The invernter of condoms though should have been killed and his body tossed in a wood chipper.

And I am also Pro-choice too.


I don't see you're point....

[35Pete]

I don't see you're point....
I am saying that I strongly disagree with those practicioners that are morally opposed to birth control and abortion. But I respect that they are following their conscience.

As far as condoms are concerned they SUCK. I hate them with a passion. The pill, diaphram or IUD is much superior. That man should have been tortured for giving women the option of a condom.

The next best thing is to pump her senseless and then pull out and cream her stomach :D . Don't you agree?

[sukie]

Pete even you know that early withdrawl doesn't work in a high percentage of times... did you miss that sixth grade class?

[RabidBillsFan]

People are supposed to be DOCTORS, not PRIESTS or MINISTERS.

Utterly unacceptable for these refusals to happen.

[35Pete]

People are supposed to be DOCTORS, not PRIESTS or MINISTERS.

Utterly unacceptable for these refusals to happen.
Yeah go ahead and force your beliefs on other people. If a patient does not like the attitude of her Dr. she can change Dr's. in a heartbeat.

Do you really want to FORCE people to violate their conscience just so they satisfy your beliefs?

[RabidBillsFan]

Yeah go ahead and force your beliefs on other people. If a patient does not like the attitude of her Dr. she can change Dr's. in a heartbeat.

Do you really want to FORCE people to violate their conscience just so they satisfy your beliefs?


They shouldn't be doctors if they cannot give their patients the BEST possible treatment for their ailments, point blank. They chose their own profession!!

[gilchristfan]

absent emergency treatment or a clear showing that treatment cannot be obtained elsewhere, conscience wins.

But of course, a private employer still retains the right to fire.

[smaweet]

I am saying that I strongly disagree with those practicioners that are morally opposed to birth control and abortion. But I respect that they are following their conscience.

As far as condoms are concerned they SUCK. I hate them with a passion. The pill, diaphram or IUD is much superior. That man should have been tortured for giving women the option of a condom.

The next best thing is to pump her senseless and then pull out and cream her stomach :D . Don't you agree?



I'll put on the rubber if its gonna help prevent me from getting various diseases from the random girls I'll meet.

[35Pete]

I'll put on the rubber if its gonna help prevent me from getting various diseases from the random girls I'll meet.
I'll take my chances and take the shot of penicillin in the ass if I have to.

[anEinherjer]

They shouldn't be doctors if they cannot give their patients the BEST possible treatment for their ailments, point blank. They chose their own profession!!

Really? And what is the "best possible treatment" for each ailment? Do you know? Do all Drs agree? Since when?

[nehemiah]

absent emergency treatment or a clear showing that treatment cannot be obtained elsewhere, conscience wins.

But of course, a private employer still retains the right to fire.you views on the birth control issue are pretty clear - but what does "emergency treatment" entail? are you arguing that there exist occupations where the crisis of conscience is not an acceptable excuse?

and what if the crisis of conscience arises b/c someone does not want to treat a Jew or a Muslim (which is entirely possible if "conscience" is arising from religious belief)?

[anEinherjer]

bolded part is a huge snag.

I figured you'd worry about that - if I said "everyone has a choice" you'd come back and complain that the poor and downtrodden don't. I'm not foolish enough to believe everyone has a choice though.

That said, I firmly believe it's better to give 95% a better option than to force 100% to accept a half-assed one. And I also firmly believe that statement will give certain egalitarians around here the heebie jeebies. :D

[nehemiah]

Really? And what is the "best possible treatment" for each ailment? Do you know? Do all Drs agree? Since when?not a good point.

there are certainly "best possible treatments" for a heck of a lot of maladies.

[nehemiah]

Yeah go ahead and force your beliefs on other people. If a patient does not like the attitude of her Dr. she can change Dr's. in a heartbeat.

Do you really want to FORCE people to violate their conscience just so they satisfy your beliefs?do you want people to die because someone's conscience might be violated?

see above: can a doctor refuse to treat a muslim or jew?

[smaweet]

I'll take my chances and take the shot of penicillin in the ass if I have to.


You're and odd creature. That's all I have to say.

[nehemiah]

I'll take my chances and take the shot of penicillin in the ass if I have to.or your AZT?

what if a doctor refused to treat AIDS patients?

[smaweet]

Or refused all high-risk patients.

/skeered

[gilchristfan]

you views on the birth control issue are pretty clear

Really? I didin't know they were. You must be going through my nightstand again. But I'll give you a hint. Ribbed and Sensadots. And no neon colored ones. They, um, break.



but what does "emergency treatment" entail? are you arguing that there exist occupations where the crisis of conscience is not an acceptable excuse?

If its going to get someone killed, or seriously injured, yes.

and what if the crisis of conscience arises b/c someone does not want to treat a Jew or a Muslim (which is entirely possible if "conscience" is arising from religious belief)?

Is it a doctor in his own office treating private pays? Then yes, its his or her perogative. Does he/she receive Medicaid or Medicare paymnets? Then its probably illegal.

[twosheds]

I can't say more. Excellent post. To force people to do things against their conscience is soooo typically liberal.

Noone forces them to work in health care.

[ckg68]

I voted no.

To reply to smaweet,Pete et al: When you are licensed as a pharmacist,you are supposed to serve ALL the people who come in to pick up prescriptions,not pick and choose who you will serve. If you do,you're in the wrong business.

[ckg68]

And since we're speaking of condoms....

http://www.sexualintelligence.org/newsletters/issue70.html#four

Yes,folks....your government AT WORK!

[anEinherjer]

not a good point.

there are certainly "best possible treatments" for a heck of a lot of maladies.

Really? And what is the "best possible treatment" for any sort of malady with a "moral" component (such as drug addiction, unmarried pregnancy, infertility, and so on).

This is a tough one to argue for me, honestly, since I do believe everyone should have access to any treatment they want, and these sorts of pharmacists prevent it.

Eh, gil's right on this one, I'll just concur and go quietly to the next thread. :)

[nehemiah]

Really? And what is the "best possible treatment" for any sort of malady with a "moral" component (such as drug addiction, unmarried pregnancy, infertility, and so on).since when did unmarried pregnancy become a malady?

and there are absolutely, positively, 100% best possible treatments for both infertility and drug addiction.

[nehemiah]

Really? I didin't know they were. You must be going through my nightstand again. But I'll give you a hint. Ribbed and Sensadots. And no neon colored ones. They, um, break.

If its going to get someone killed, or seriously injured, yes.

Is it a doctor in his own office treating private pays? Then yes, its his or her perogative. Does he/she receive Medicaid or Medicare paymnets? Then its probably illegal.i meant your thoughts about pharmacists doling out the pill - you are a horndog. :D

what does "seriously injured" mean? does that include a ****ed up face? or are you talking paralysis?

what happens if it is a mixture of private pay/govt assistance?

will i have to fill out a sexual orientation and religion form for my med evals?

and lastly (for now) - we are going to need to get rid of licensure for doctors, b/c anyone who refuses to treat people for "moral" reasons is breaking the hippocratic oath.


I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

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

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

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

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

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

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

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

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

[RabidBillsFan]

Really? And what is the "best possible treatment" for each ailment? Do you know? Do all Drs agree? Since when?

Well all know that doctors don't agree on everything. HOWEVER, if someone is denied the best possible treatment among the vast majority of doctors, THEN that is what I am talking about in this case. There is my clarification on that point.

[RabidBillsFan]

I voted no.

To reply to smaweet,Pete et al: When you are licensed as a pharmacist,you are supposed to serve ALL the people who come in to pick up prescriptions,not pick and choose who you will serve. If you do,you're in the wrong business.

Now there is another person who sees what I am talking about, this time in the pharmacy, another aspect- if you don't want to give it out, then you should be fired.

[sukie]

Or again just not stock those drugs. (obviously notin the chain outlets)

[RabidBillsFan]

Or again just not stock those drugs. (obviously notin the chain outlets)

That's like a cashier not selling condoms to a person because they are Catholic, and then saying, "Ohh large corporate store of a chain that numbers in the thousands, just don't stock condoms". It doesn't sound equitable IMO.

[notacon]

What happens if a medical professional’s “personal beliefs” are that Blacks are beneath whites and refuses to treat them even if they work in an emergency room?

What about if a medical professional’s “personal beliefs” are that Jews are a threat to Christian dogma and refuses to treat Jews?

What if a medical professional’s “personal beliefs” are that Christians are responsible for the war against Muslims and refuses to treat Christians?

The only ones that support this so-called “conscience” reason to withhold medical treatment are those that are against abortion rights and homosexuality(and refuse to treat ONLY in these situations)…basically whacko fundamental Christians.

If they believe that one can refuse to treat these types of situations then they would also have to support decisions to withhold treatment based on race, ethnicity and religion.

Which goes against everything that America is about…no surprise since fundamentalist Christians are against America and Americans when pitted against their religious beliefs.

[TRIPLE P]

Lets say I own a drug store...and I want to sell birth control, and morning after pills......

Can I refuse to hire someone who I know is very religious and may refuse to sell these things in my store?

[notacon]

Lets say I own a drug store...and I want to sell birth control, and morning after pills......

Can I refuse to hire someone who I know is very religious and may refuse to sell these things in my store?

Yes.

And that person should not take a job that would go against their beliefs.

[TRIPLE P]

Yes.

And that person should not take a job that would go against their beliefs.


So I can tell someone to thier face "I'm not hiring you because of your religious beliefs" ?

(I agree with you)

[nehemiah]

So I can tell someone to thier face "I'm not hiring you because of your religious beliefs"?oo! a snag.

interesting turn of events.

[TRIPLE P]

oo! a snag.

interesting turn of events.


Thats what I'm saying.... this is some of the thinnest ice I've walked on in a while...must be the global warming...

[gilchristfan]

i meant your thoughts about pharmacists doling out the pill - you are a horndog. :D

what does "seriously injured" mean? does that include a ****ed up face? or are you talking paralysis?

what happens if it is a mixture of private pay/govt assistance?

will i have to fill out a sexual orientation and religion form for my med evals?

and lastly (for now) - we are going to need to get rid of licensure for doctors, b/c anyone who refuses to treat people for "moral" reasons is breaking the hippocratic oath.


I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

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

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

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

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

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

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

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

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

So when the State determines that all children who become disciplinary problems at school should be treated with Ritalin, the doctor that refuses to prescribe it like breath mints should face losing his license? Far fetched? Not really. How hard would it be to fill a state medical board with stooges from the Pharma industry, or with religious zealots? 3 states this year have already attempted to change the definition of science, despite protests from the scientific community. Think it would be difficult for a medical board to change treatment standards? I'd think that would be easier.

If you take away a doctor's freedom, you take away their independent judgment. Be careful what you wish for.

[gilchristfan]

So I can tell someone to thier face "I'm not hiring you because of your religious beliefs" ?

(I agree with you)

If a private employer can't accomodate the religious beliefs of a potential employer, they don't have to hire them. Happens alot.

[anEinherjer]

So when the State determines that all children who become disciplinary problems at school should be treated with Ritalin, the doctor that refuses to prescribe it like breath mints should face losing his license? Far fetched? Not really. How hard would it be to fill a state medical board with stooges from the Pharma industry, or with religious zealots? 3 states this year have already attempted to change the definition of science, despite protests from the scientific community. Think it would be difficult for a medical board to change treatment standards? I'd think that would be easier.

Or how about a father, divorced from their child's mother, fighting every day to prevent what he believes is unnecessary drugging of their child. The mother, backed by her doctors, claim the kid is ADHD, and want to pump him full of drugs. Father disagrees vehemently, has his own doctors. (Not that I know this guy or anything......)

Who's right?

It's interesting that the prevailing perspective here seems to be, "Thou must do X otherwise you're a discriminatory criminal"...

[nehemiah]

So when the State determines that all children who become disciplinary problems at school should be treated with Ritalin, the doctor that refuses to prescribe it like breath mints should face losing his license? Far fetched? Not really. How hard would it be to fill a state medical board with stooges from the Pharma industry, or with religious zealots? 3 states this year have already attempted to change the definition of science, despite protests from the scientific community. Think it would be difficult for a medical board to change treatment standards? I'd think that would be easier.

If you take away a doctor's freedom, you take away their independent judgment. Be careful what you wish for.it would be in poor professional praqctice to prescribe it like breath mints.

if a doctor does his/her job - why would he face losing his license?

[nehemiah]

Or how about a father, divorced from their child's mother, fighting every day to prevent what he believes is unnecessary drugging of their child. The mother, backed by her doctors, claim the kid is ADHD, and want to pump him full of drugs. Father disagrees vehemently, has his own doctors. (Not that I know this guy or anything......)

Who's right?who has primary custody?

[notacon]

So I can tell someone to thier face "I'm not hiring you because of your religious beliefs" ?

(I agree with you)

No.

You say that “I am not hiring you because you cannot fulfill the duties of the position.”

[notacon]

So when the State determines that all children who become disciplinary problems at school should be treated with Ritalin, the doctor that refuses to prescribe it like breath mints should face losing his license? Far fetched? Not really. How hard would it be to fill a state medical board with stooges from the Pharma industry, or with religious zealots? 3 states this year have already attempted to change the definition of science, despite protests from the scientific community. Think it would be difficult for a medical board to change treatment standards? I'd think that would be easier.

If you take away a doctor's freedom, you take away their independent judgment. Be careful what you wish for.

Bad analogy.

Deciding to treat a certain symptom a certain way is a medical decision and not religiously based opinion.

There are already guidelines and precedent in place in the medical profession to help decide treatment.

[notacon]

Or how about a father, divorced from their child's mother, fighting every day to prevent what he believes is unnecessary drugging of their child. The mother, backed by her doctors, claim the kid is ADHD, and want to pump him full of drugs. Father disagrees vehemently, has his own doctors. (Not that I know this guy or anything......)

Who's right?

It's interesting that the prevailing perspective here seems to be, "Thou must do X otherwise you're a discriminatory criminal"...

That is what the courts are for and why preventing packing them with religious (or extreme liberal) ideologues is so important.

[Canisius85]

. To force people to do things against their conscience is soooo typically liberal.

Assuming said individuals have a conscience to begin with...

[gilchristfan]

it would be in poor professional praqctice to prescribe it like breath mints.

if a doctor does his/her job - why would he face losing his license?

Yeah, it is bad practice (and its done-- alot) But follow me on this. You say a doctor should be subject to discipline for refusing to prescribe birth control. I say, what happens when that scenario now changes to Ritalin..or morphine?

[nehemiah]

Yeah, it is bad practice (and its done-- alot) But follow me on this. You say a doctor should be subject to discipline for refusing to prescribe birth control. I say, what happens when that scenario now changes to Ritalin..or morphine?interesting point - but, IMO, there is a subtle difference.

in both cases, (after patient wishes) quality medical care should be paramount - not doctor's wishes. whether it's morphine, ritalin, or birth control.

prescribing birth control is a sound medical practice. there is no medical reason to refuse a birth control prescription - just because a moralistic doctor wishes it so does not deny the medical evidence.

[gilchristfan]

Bad analogy.

Deciding to treat a certain symptom a certain way is a medical decision and not religiously based opinion.

There are already guidelines and precedent in place in the medical profession to help decide treatment.

Actually, it was a pretty good analogy. This year, in not one, but 3 states, Boards of Education attempted to change the definition of "science". Why? Because they were stacked with religious looney's that had an agenda to push. Obviously, the study of science has guidelines and precedence in place, but they were ignored.

You don't think you can do that with a Board of Medical Examiners? Its actually a little easier, since the medical boards are usually gubernatorial appointments, rather than elected officials. It wouldn't take much for a devious governor to stack a board with, well, people not as concerned with proper medical practice as they are with creating an agenda.

So what happens when they create standards that aren't so standard?
And worse, make several of these questionable standards compulsory?

You've already removed the autonomy of the medical provider by requiring them to perform certain procedures or prescribe certain meds.

Now what?

[gilchristfan]

interesting point - but, IMO, there is a subtle difference.

in both cases, (after patient wishes) quality medical care should be paramount - not doctor's wishes. whether it's morphine, ritalin, or birth control.

prescribing birth control is a sound medical practice. there is no medical reason to refuse a birth control prescription - just because a moralistic doctor wishes it so does not deny the medical evidence.

So we should eliminate the FDA? Eliminate the requirement that only doctors can order prescription medicine be given? After all, if the patient's wishes are paramount, what's the point of a prescription?

[smaweet]

I voted no.

To reply to smaweet,Pete et al: When you are licensed as a pharmacist,you are supposed to serve ALL the people who come in to pick up prescriptions,not pick and choose who you will serve. If you do,you're in the wrong business.


That's fine then. The issue there would be with the right to earn a license, something I have no quarrel with.

[nehemiah]

So we should eliminate the FDA? Eliminate the requirement that only doctors can order prescription medicine be given? After all, if the patient's wishes are paramount, what's the point of a prescription?a patient can refuse service. that's what i meant with that clause - in cases of refusal of service, a patient has the final say. of course a patient can't demand open heart surgery and get it without needing it.

back to the rumble - you're essentiallly arguing that negligent medical practice should be allowed.

so when i start cutting up some Jew and stop in the middle b/c my conscience kicked in - what happens? what if i am the only emergency physician for 100 miles? some Jew gets into a car accident and i refuse to treat b/c he has not accepted jesus into his life?

also (this fell by the wayside) - does a person have to tell their MD if they're Jewish or Muslim (or whatever)? how else would a doctor know? stake out the synagogue and keep a list? isn't that an abrogation of religious freedom?

[nehemiah]

btw, pharmacists are glorified librarians. they do NOTHING but read slips of paper. the notion that pharmacy is a "profession" sickens. why can't we get rid of the idiots altogether? have a computer bag out the meds - the pharmacist only needs to see the name on the bottle, not the medicine in it.

[smaweet]

nehemiah is just jealous that their two years of schooling makes them more money than he'll ever earn.

[nehemiah]

nehemiah is just jealous that their two years of schooling makes them more money than he'll ever earn.nah... my good looks, whipsmart intellect, and huge penis makes up for my salary.

i'm the reverse of a pharmacist (and republicans).

[gilchristfan]

back to the rumble - you're essentiallly arguing that negligent medical practice should be allowed.

Never said that.


so when i start cutting up some Jew and stop in the middle b/c my conscience kicked in - what happens? what if i am the only emergency physician for 100 miles? some Jew gets into a car accident and i refuse to treat b/c he has not accepted jesus into his life?

Nor that.


also (this fell by the wayside) - does a person have to tell their MD if they're Jewish or Muslim (or whatever)? how else would a doctor know? stake out the synagogue and keep a list? isn't that an abrogation of religious freedom?

And not even that.

0 for 3, now hitting for Nehemiah---Manny Mota.

[anEinherjer]

btw, pharmacists are glorified librarians. they do NOTHING but read slips of paper. the notion that pharmacy is a "profession" sickens. why can't we get rid of the idiots altogether? have a computer bag out the meds - the pharmacist only needs to see the name on the bottle, not the medicine in it.

You don't know any pharmacists, do you? And sma, 2 year degree? I don't think so. Maybe an assistant.

who has primary custody?

WTF?!?? You are arguing that all medical care should be defined ahead of time, and followed without exception (because it's the "standard" or "best practice") but then you throw in this crap about which parent has primary custody?? It shouldn't matter who has custody, if all doctors have to follow the "standards", right??

prescribing birth control is a sound medical practice. there is no medical reason to refuse a birth control prescription - just because a moralistic doctor wishes it so does not deny the medical evidence.

Really? Are you sure there's no reason to not prescribe birth control? Really really?

It's a pharmacist's responsibility to know what they're prescibing to a patient, not the doctor; I can go to two totally different doctors and get two different prescriptions. Let's say I'm a chick (hehehe, I have boobies) and I get two different birth control prescrips - but only because I want to sell one to my 13 year old friend who also wants to start banging but doesn't have permission from her parents. The pharmacist absolutely should refuse to grant me the second prescription, don't you think? And it IS a valid medical reason (take your pick - two birth control pills at the same time aren't healthy, or a 13 y/o using it).

(That argument just applies given current drug laws. I personally really don't care if one person gives a drug to another. Just arguing that side)

[nehemiah]

Never said that.

Nor that.

And not even that.

0 for 3, now hitting for Nehemiah---Manny Mota.yes, i dunno, and yes.

i'm sid bream. 2 for 3 with a game winning RBI.

[nehemiah]

You don't know any pharmacists, do you? And sma, 2 year degree? I don't think so. Maybe an assistant.i do know a couple of pharmacists. good guys to get drunk with. still glorified librarians - and their job could easily be replaced by technology.

WTF?!?? You are arguing that all medical care should be defined ahead of time, and followed without exception (because it's the "standard" or "best practice") but then you throw in this crap about which parent has primary custody?? It shouldn't matter who has custody, if all doctors have to follow the "standards", right??take it easy gunner... i was answering your question. you threw in some custody issues. whoever has primary custory wins that issue.

Really? Are you sure there's no reason to not prescribe birth control? Really really?

It's a pharmacist's responsibility to know what they're prescibing to a patient, not the doctor; I can go to two totally different doctors and get two different prescriptions. Let's say I'm a chick (hehehe, I have boobies) and I get two different birth control prescrips - but only because I want to sell one to my 13 year old friend who also wants to start banging but doesn't have permission from her parents. The pharmacist absolutely should refuse to grant me the second prescription, don't you think? And it IS a valid medical reason (take your pick - two birth control pills at the same time aren't healthy, or a 13 y/o using it).there are particular reasons to not prescribe birth control to particular persons (if you want to go pedantic). but in general, it is perfectly safe to prescribe birth control (even to a 13 year old).

it's very simple - a doctor is required to provide the best medical care to his/her patients. that is the question of the thread... can someone refuse to provide medical care THAT IS REQUIRED by SOUND MEDICAL PRACTICE?

oy vey.

[Canisius85]

i do know a couple of pharmacists. good guys to get drunk with. still glorified librarians - and their job could easily be replaced by technology.



I believe it's a five year program at UB....heavy on the Biology and Chemistry to ensure that no more Mr Gowers run the local pharmacy.

[sukie]

Nehemiah is jealous of pharmacists.

[nehemiah]

Nehemiah is jealous of pharmacists.http://www.buffalorange.com/showpost.php?p=1152390&postcount=67

[sukie]

hey... My made up career grosses me over 92K on only a two year degree so F the pharmacists.