Darcy Burner on Pharmacist Refusal

[maraljan]

This is exactly the problem Voltrabbit7:

Most of these people know nothing about their rights and our Constitution. They are falling deeper and deeper into the ignorance of American society.

[maraljan]

Voltrabbit7:

You've just described how our "free" American society, is becoming Communistic. No more rights for health care providers.

Health care professionals don't work for the state, they shouldn't be forced by the state to do something that goes against their religious or ethical beliefs.

Maybe all these pro-choice people should start their own organization, go to school and open up their own pharmacies, instead of hiking on hard working pro-life professionals!

[maraljan]

What about a health-care providers right to freedom of religion:

Pharmacist are not government workers, they should not be forced by the government to do things they think are wrong. What happened to freedom of religion? This is just one of many trends occuring in our country...the slow trend toward communism.

Let all the pro-choice people support other pharmacies or go to school and open up their own store. This is America, and America means choice-shop where you want!

[DonnerPartyAnimals]

Communism? Are you in the 7th grade? Tell me how forcing pharmacists to do their job has anything to do with a radical distribution of wealth. Oh wait, you don't actually know what socialism is... your just a dumb fuck who uses the term "communism" for anything he disagrees with.

[justforfun613]

HA! This makes me want to vote for Reichert!

[DonnerPartyAnimals]

This makes me want to kick justforfun's ass.

[bogon5dot]

Yes, that's part of the 14th amendment. (Equal protection under the law) This means that should get treated the same as anyone else. The Pharmacist may refuse service to anyone. However, under equal protection, he can't fill some prescriptions and not fill others based on some discriminatory basis.

If you live in the boonies, another Pharmacy may be many miles away.

[milofonbil]

What part of the 4th and 14th amendment don't you understand?

[milofonbil]

If you had actually read the constitution and the bill of rights as you are advocating, then you would know that the 14th amendment under the liberty clause is also interpreted as the right to privacy. The pharmacist has no business placing his personal beliefs above the liberty of patients by refusing to fill a prescription.

[milofonbil]

"It is correct to say that congress, the government have no authority over how we live our lives." Of course they do. What do you think laws are for?

[milofonbil]

In Illinois, four Walgreens pharmacists who said they wouldn't fill prescriptions for the morning-after pill. In California, a Fry's pharmacist refused to fill the emergency morning after pill. A Texas Eckerd pharmacy denied a rape victim the pill in violation of company policy. It happens all the time. Women rape victims don't have all day to search for a pharmacist that does not inject his own fanatic beliefs into dispensing a drug. A woman has the right to privacy with her health.

[milofonbil]

I think that pharmacists should ensure it's the right prescription, the right dose, number, etc. But I don't think that the pharmacists should be injecting their religious or other fanatic beliefs in between the doctor and his patient.

A pharmacist should be able to believe anything he wants to - even in UFOs. But to take actions on those beliefs is a different thing. He may have the right to believe the patient is an alien, but should he be allowed to poison them? to not dispense meds? No

[Katidid44]

A pharmacist is only the vehicle to carry out one small portion of a patient's health program. He/she is NOT their conscience, nor their drug police. If you ask them, the majority of pharmacists will tell you they have no interest in policing their customers. These "customers" are not "patients" of pharmacists. The U.S. is getting more and more into our private lives. Is this the kind of country Americans really want to live in? Sounds rather fascist.

[YourHumanRights]

These are cancer causing steroids that can and do kill mothers and children alike. Then they are flushed into our rivers and streams and deform the fish! That's why these poisons are often vomited up. Your body knows better!

Pharmacists who refuse to peddle these steroids are heros. THEY are the ones protecting the health of mothers and their children, not profitting from their destruction. Human rights begins with human life.

[PearlHarborDay127]

You have to attract a man first! GOOD LUCK!!!

[ad0304s]

Contraception is a moral choice. If women want to make that, that's great. The government shouldn't make that choice for them! The government also shouldn't make that choice for pharmacists either... And if you don't like your pharmacist, then, wow - maybe you can find a new one? They're everywhere. :)

[HiTekVagabond]

Darcy - thanks for your e-mail "An Anniversary Worth Celebrating. A Right We Need to Protect." I will send you a contribution.

The last thing we need is to have a bunch of Pharmacists believing they have the right to decide whose prescription they want to fill. If they confuse politics with their jobs, maybe what needs to be done is to add some teeth to the APA's policy by codifying it.

[bogon5dot]

Darcy, this is a right to medical care issue which spans all people, not just women. The same kind of "moral" persecution exists against gays, lesbians and transgendered people by pharmacists. There are plenty of nut job pill counters that preach that queers and faggots who have AIDS need to take God's punishment for their sins, etc.

[milofonbil]

It's my understanding that the American Pharmacists Association has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions based on their moral views, but they MUST give the prescription back to the patient and make arrangements so the patient can still get the prescription filled elsewhere. If pharmacists cannot self regulate adequately, laws must be passed to serve the good of society, not the religious beliefs of a few pharmacists.

[milofonbil]

Let's get to the point here. The issue is really that quite a few pharmacists want to interject their religious beliefs between the doctor and the patient when medication is prescribed such as birth control, the "morning-after" pill, stem cell research or drugs that could be used for assisted suicide.

[bogon5dot]

"A pharmacist knows nothing about a patient's medical history?" Do they have the doctor's medical record in hand? No. These righteous pill-counters can refuse dispensing female hormones to a person that they thought looked like a transsexual, or medication for an aids or anal gonorrhea patient. Or, how about on the drugs the pharmacy does not make a lot of money on?

[mottigga]

Darcy Burns is obviously a dumbass. A pharmacist knows nothing about a patient's medical history? Wake up. We keep death from occurring on a daily basis, and sometimes it is necessary to alter therapy or not fill certain prescriptions. Now, refusal based on personal reasons is still (by law... look it up) up to a pharmacist. We run the show at the point of contact when it comes to drug therapy and can refuse any prescription for any reason.

[milofonbil]

And about your Ad-Hominem attack, her name is Darcy Burner, not Darcy Burns. How can I feel safe around your decisions as a pharmacist when you can't even copy her name from the top of the video. Perhaps you are likely to refuse a filling a prescription simply because it looks like another one you morally object to.

[bogon5dot]

If you can't even get the name right, then perhaps you should focus on your work and keep your politics or religion out of filling prescriptions. It seems to me like you are the dumbass.