Comments on: Drugs

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:16:58 +0000

Pharmacists are like bartenders, and no one would ever say that a bartender shouldn't be able to withhold serving alcohol.

When the legality of a certian prescription or the demeanor of the client indicate that the person is an illicit user, then they should and do have the absolute right to reefuse service and that's perfect.

About religious views? Call it what it is, the context is the morning after pill only, right? Because retin-A and hydrocodone aren't particularly religiously impacting drugs.

Anyways. Who cares anyways? Find a different pharmacy.

By: baseballmom

baseballmom — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 03:00:30 +0000

Just chiming in…I'm late to the party, as usual. My dad was a pharmacist, and owned his own pharmacy until the 'big boy' chain stores pushed him out of business. He was famous for running his business the way he wanted, and if people didn't like it, they could go somewhere else. That said, a pharmacist should have to distribute what is written on a prescription, regardless of their personal feelings, as long as it's legal. They are there to do a job, bottom line. You could also insert the scenario of a pharmacist refusing to distribute a certain drug because they were paid by the drug companies to only distribute their brand. Moral? NO, but it could happen. Who is to say that a pharmacist is REALLY doing it for moral or religious purposes? Maybe they're being paid off, and lying about it! Who knows…

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 02:54:57 +0000

Mah head hurtz. :banghead:

By: Trukindog

Trukindog — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 00:32:36 +0000

Other than suspicion of illegal activity NO they should not be allowed to refuse to perform the sevice they are hired to do for any other reason, if they have a moral or religious problem with some of the products they are expected to provide to the customer THEIR IN THE WRONG LINE OF WORK.

By: NYCWD

NYCWD — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 23:07:17 +0000

@WillieG- Sorry for the delay, we must have been commenting at the same time.

That's quite a contradiction you have there… because it's pretty hard to be made a slave when it is a profession that you have chosen. No one is holding a gun to your head to make you a pharmacist. They're holding a paycheck.

When your chosen profession is in the service industry and directly deals with the well being of a life, then absolutely you need to be held accountable for your failure to fulfill your duty.

By not providing me a service that is offered by your employer, and still accepting the money they pay you although you have denied me the service is discriminatory. I also don't think quality or time of sleep determines the strength of a man's morals.

The strong man would find a new job.

By: NYCWD

NYCWD — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:38:18 +0000

RW, I never said A equaled B and B equaled C. I'm saying A equals A and therefore it should be treated like A… otherwise as your argument suggests the value of an individual's morality is not greater than an individual's duty because morality varies. Duty, on the other hand, is constant and equal and across the board.

Or at least it should be.

I did in fact read what you suggested… but to be honest I don't believe that to be the case here.

By: Willie G

Willie G — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:34:13 +0000

@NYCWD: IMHO you are clearly trying to make us all slaves to our chosen professions. Whereas I say that you must be true to yourself. If I were a Pharmacist I would perform those duties as licensed to perform in the shadow of my values and principles whether they are governed by a specific religion or not. If I find a drug to be morally objectionable then I would not sell it regardless of how much you personally were inconvenienced. I would not feel obligated to push my values on you in any way, I would simply tell you that you would have to go to a different Pharmacy. I say that as a result of this stance you may think me a poor Pharmacist, but I would sleep at night knowing that I am a strong man.

By: RW

RW — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:04:51 +0000

Well Dawg, finally, we make distinctions because distinctions need to be made. A does not equal B and B does not equal C. Honor killings are not the same thing as pharmacists and medicine; they are completely different things. They need to have a distinction made between them and the balance of your argument wants to blur that distinction. I recommend you check my link on logical fallacies. There are degrees and differences and distinctions; and you can't extrapolate something to its most heinous end and negate the whole principle. Please read what I suggested.

By: NYCWD

NYCWD — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:37:12 +0000

@ RW- Almost exactly my point… we should not allow the influence of questionable morality when making laws. I also think we should not allow the influence of religious beliefs when making laws. Both have had influence on this nation and its laws.

@ Willie G- At no time did I say anything about religious beliefs or cultural beliefs. I am speaking on the aspect of morality, which I admit can be influenced by both the cultural and religious aspects of one's life and vice versa. I also am not arguing about Pharmacists in particular because I believe the argument is bigger than that. I believe it is about personal morality vs. societal/employment duty, and by arguing, as I believe you are, that your morality should come before duty then that opens an entire other issue because the moral values of one group may not be the same as those of the other. I am not making a "straw man's" argument in the slightest… in fact if anything I am the one raising the bar above the scope of the role of the Pharmacist… who's job description still has not changed.

@ Miss link)','caption', 'Almost as smart as I am' );">Britt- Yes, I understand your argument and I heard your argument from the show last night. Of course, there was plenty of frustration in not having a flux capacitor so I could call in live, but that aside please think of this:

The convenience of being able to sit at the front of the bus is in fact a right. The convenience of being able to go to a school is a right. The convenience of eating in a restaurant with other patrons is a right. The convenience of being able to legally marry the person you love SHOULD be a right, but we aren't quite there yet because morality is against it. The convenience of being able to get a prescription from a location where there is a licensed and certified person SHOULD also be a right, especially when that convenience is available at any other time.

If those conveniences aren't rights… then that is discrimination.

By: Coal Miner's Granddaughter

Coal Miner's Granddaughter — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:41:09 +0000

Honestly? I haven't thought about this probably because all I ever get from the pharmacist is birth control, amoxicillin (sp?), and some kind of trippy cough syrup that can knock my shit out for two solid weeks. I lost Christmas, 2000 on that stuff.

What I have to say on this is that if your 16-month-old is taking two days of prednisone for the croup (helps with his breathing) and develops red blotches due to said medication (common side-effect), can I tell my worrisome, drive-me-fucking-crazy MIL to go drive off a cliff when she insists I take him to the ER due to said red blotches?

Thanks.