Declining Abortion Meds soon to be a reality?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.

CVS Rph 1980

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
24
Reaction score
1
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I think in many states (including mine) pharmacists can refuse to fill abortion meds, you can't destroy the prescription but you can refuse to fill it. I find no problem with that.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I think people should have the right to refuse to fill it, but only if there is a reasonable access to it somewhere else. The problem is, who decides reasonable? what if you are in some podunk town in the middle of nowhere bible belt and everybody refuses it? that is just one of the problems I see
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I think people should have the right to refuse to fill it, but only if there is a reasonable access to it somewhere else. The problem is, who decides reasonable? what if you are in some podunk town in the middle of nowhere bible belt and everybody refuses it? that is just one of the problems I see

This is a HUGE problem in rural Georgia. No bus services and only one or two pharmacies within a 40 mile radius. So both pharmacists refuse to fill (even though they know the patient doesn't have the transportation/means to obtain the meds elsewhere) because they don't want to be known as the pharmacist that condones abortion within their communities. What if their fellow churchgoers or <gasp> the reverend found out?? Healthcare providers are entitled to their own personal belief system but you're being PAID to help your patients within the limits of the law and your professional judgement. Personal judgement =/= Professional judgement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
This is a HUGE problem in rural Georgia. No bus services and only one or two pharmacies within a 40 mile radius. So both pharmacists refuse to fill (even though they know the patient doesn't have the transportation/means to obtain the meds elsewhere) because they don't want to be known as the pharmacist that condones abortion within their communities. What if their fellow churchgoers or <gasp> the reverend found out?? Healthcare providers are entitled to their own personal belief system but you're being PAID to help your patients within the limits of the law and your professional judgement. Personal judgement =/= Professional judgement.
yup - in a big city where there are 20+ pharmacies with easy access - it is one thing. People say "doctors don't have to perform abortions if they don't want to", "RN's don't have to", etc. Where do draw the line? "Abortion pills?", birth control, viagra if we know the guy is single? I mean, you are opening a pandora's box.
If we make a commitment to serving the public, we have to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I think that you should be able to refuse it, but that if you're working for a chain and do so, they should be able to fire you for the resulting complaint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Personally I'm not a big fan of refusal to fill. Why be in a profession if you can't fulfill your duties?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
I don't really see it as much different than the pharmacy that refused to fill the medication required for a lethal injection for a death row inmate due to their ethical beliefs on the subject (If I remember correctly there was a case of this occurring). For some filling that abortion medication means they have used their license to contribute to directly killing another human life and could be considered a "do no harm" type of refusal or simply because it clashes with their ethics, I can respect the decision of others who don't want to use their license in such a way or wouldn't force them to fill it for lethal injection or abortion.

At the end of the day it's still your license and you as the practitioner are given freedom in areas where they have conscience clauses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Personally I'm not a big fan of refusal to fill. Why be in a profession if you can't fulfill your duties?

Don't we have a professional duty to protect the patient? If a pharmacist believes that abortion is murder, how can you say that by denying the prescription they are not fulfilling their professional duties?

More importantly, who wants to be the judge that has to decide if denying an abortion pill is protecting the patient?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Don't we have a professional duty to protect the patient? If a pharmacist believes that abortion is murder, how can you say that by denying the prescription they are not fulfilling their professional duties?

More importantly, who wants to be the judge that has to decide if denying an abortion pill is protecting the patient?
But if a patient doesn't have access to a medication, because the only three pharmacies near here refuse to help her, why should she be punished because she does have the same beliefs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
But if a patient doesn't have access to a medication, because the only three pharmacies near here refuse to help her, why should she be punished because she does have the same beliefs?

I disagree with the premise of your question because it assumes that people have a right to our services.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I disagree with the premise of your question because it assumes that people have a right to our services.
People don't have a right to healthcare that they paid for? (lets just assume we all pay and not go down the road of who pays for what - that is a different discussion)

We have taken the responsibility to serve our patients. If a patient comes into the ED and OD'd on heroin, can I say it is against my beliefs to do drugs and let them die?

What is they were drunk and got in a fight and smashed up - refuse to treat them?

They are a single mother in labor, refuse to deliver their baby?

They want a flu vaccine but I am one of those idiots who are against vaccination, I refuse to dispense?

They smoke, I refuse to fill an inhaler because I disagree with their lifestyle?

They are fat, I refuse to give them a statin because they eat too much mcdonalds?

the list can go on and on

where do you draw the line?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
People don't have a right to healthcare that they paid for? (lets just assume we all pay and not go down the road of who pays for what - that is a different discussion)

We have taken the responsibility to serve our patients. If a patient comes into the ED and OD'd on heroin, can I say it is against my beliefs to do drugs and let them die?

What is they were drunk and got in a fight and smashed up - refuse to treat them?

They are a single mother in labor, refuse to deliver their baby?


They want a flu vaccine but I am one of those idiots who are against vaccination, I refuse to dispense?

They smoke, I refuse to fill an inhaler because I disagree with their lifestyle?

They are fat, I refuse to give them a statin because they eat too much mcdonalds?

the list can go on and on

where do you draw the line?

Bolded statements are apples and oranges. You can't compare treatment in the ED to treatment at a pharmacy. As to the other ones, why not? Sure it's not morally right to do those things but nowhere that I'm licensed as laws on the books saying that citizens are entitled to my services.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
People don't have a right to healthcare that they paid for? (lets just assume we all pay and not go down the road of who pays for what - that is a different discussion)

We have taken the responsibility to serve our patients. If a patient comes into the ED and OD'd on heroin, can I say it is against my beliefs to do drugs and let them die?

What is they were drunk and got in a fight and smashed up - refuse to treat them?

They are a single mother in labor, refuse to deliver their baby?

They want a flu vaccine but I am one of those idiots who are against vaccination, I refuse to dispense?

They smoke, I refuse to fill an inhaler because I disagree with their lifestyle?

They are fat, I refuse to give them a statin because they eat too much mcdonalds?

the list can go on and on

where do you draw the line?

You don't. There is no line.

You use your professional judgement. Pharmacy, as we all have been taught, is a grey profession, not black and white.

If the consumer disagrees with your professional judgement they can seek the professional opinion of someone else. Geographic isolation has nothing to do with this argument IMO, although it is unfortunate.
 
You don't. There is no line.

You use your professional judgement. Pharmacy, as we all have been taught, is a grey profession, not black and white.

If the consumer disagrees with your professional judgement they can seek the professional opinion of someone else. Geographic isolation has nothing to do with this argument IMO, although it is unfortunate.
professional judgement is different choosing what you see as moral
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Bolded statements are apples and oranges. You can't compare treatment in the ED to treatment at a pharmacy. As to the other ones, why not? Sure it's not morally right to do those things but nowhere that I'm licensed as laws on the books saying that citizens are entitled to my services.
and I know they are different, but that are examples of you imposing your morals on others.


I hope you own your own pharmacy because that way of thinking will get your fired anywhere else
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
On the flip side though should patients be able to force their morals upon providers? To come in and say "I have a physician who approves of my abortion and you must fill this medication because you exist as a pharmacist" is basically enforcing the patients morals upon the provider, who is still an individual themselves. Should they be able to walk up to any physician and demand that they provide a service if they are trained in it? In a sense it is forced servitude and an entitlement to your services. Patients have rights, you can't rip up their prescription because you believe that prescription exists to kill another human life, but at the same time pharmacists should be protected by conscience clauses to protect their rights as individuals too and not be forced into servitude to do something that goes against their convictions, especially in areas like abortion where for many it's viewed as the unethical killing of a human being. I think the best ground is to allow each to live by their conscience, the pharmacist should be able to refuse, but they can't remove the right of the patient to seek service somewhere else like refusing to hand the script back or destroying it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
If the patient has a valid prescription signed by a doctor, then I have no problems filling it. If the fundamentalists give me a hard time about it, then I don't know what to say.

In an alternate reality scenario where abortion meds are sold over the counter, I would take time to talk to the patient and ask if they are really sure about their decision. Have them sign papers saying they understand what they are about to do, and will not hold anyone legally responsible. Then I will sell them the meds.

My personal beliefs are for my own only, and I have no interest in telling others what they should do, other than the real tangible consequences of what their actions may bring. Likewise, I get annoyed by people telling me what I should be doing unless they explain their reasoning with reasonable truths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Where do draw the line? "Abortion pills?", birth control, viagra if we know the guy is single? I mean, you are opening a pandora's box.

Yes, an independent pharmacy owner should have the right to not fill any prescriptions the owner chooses not to fill, and yes, even mental health meds if it goes against their scientific belief. The only requirement I could see, is requiring the owner to post a list of medicines they don't fill, so patients will know up front. Independent doctors can refuse to write prescriptions for all of the things mentioned here, so why should independent pharmacists have to fill these prescriptions?

Now as for employee pharmacies in chains, hospitals, etc......they need to fill whatever legal precriptions their employer wants them to fill (I think many chains & hospitals do try to respect employees individual beliefs, by shifting the prescription to another pharmacist to fill it.)

As for the access issue......I think that is a red herring, outside of North Dakota, almost any area is going to be serviced by one or more chains, that will ensure that the pt gets their prescription filled (I'm not aware of any chain that blanketly refuses to fill any type of prescription.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The acess argument is irrelevant, either a patient has a right to force your hand or they don't. (They don't)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I hope someday you all find yourself in some Podunk town late Saturday night with 1 pharmacy run by some jack hole and they refuse to fill some urgent script (hopefully for pain) becaue they don't like your type and you're forces to drive 20 miles and wait till Monday to fill the script

Or conversely, your daughter has an abortion and is completely embarrass by some d-wad pharmacist While trying to get her methergine and doxy
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
I hope someday you all find yourself in some Podunk town late Saturday night with 1 pharmacy run by some jack hole and they refuse to fill some urgent script (hopefully for pain) becaue they don't like your type and you're forces to drive 20 miles and wait till Monday to fill the script

Or conversely, your daughter has an abortion and is completely embarrass by some d-wad pharmacist While trying to get her methergine and doxy
I appreciate hyperbole as much as the next guy...but none of that changes anything. Does someone have a right to force your hand against your conscience?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Your conscience does not override your professional duty. Your conscience is a construct of your upbringing and mental state and has no relevance on the professional practice of pharmacy/medicine. Your conscience is poisoned by prejudice and abstract "moral code" like religion. It's not reliable

If you can't answer yes to the questions, is filling this going to hurt the patient based on scientific fact (unborn fetuses are not patients) or is this illegal to fill, then it's your professional duty to fill it. If you don't like that get a different job
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
If you can't answer yes to the questions, is filling this going to hurt the patient based on scientific fact (unborn fetuses are not patients)

Depends on your point of view, unborn fetuses most certainly are patients to OB/GYN's dealing with a woman with a wanted pregnancy, and who will certain be consulting with neonatologists in the event of an impending premature birth.

I really don't get this attitude of wanting to force other people to provide services for you. Seriously, I would not trust the services of someone who was forced to provide them for me, if a baker doesn't want to make a cake for me, if a doctor doesn't want me as a patient, if a pharmacist doesn't want to fill my script, so be it, I will take my business elsewhere....because I would question the quality of any service they provided to me against their will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I see the conscience argument as people wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to practice a profession, but be able to pull out a conscience card that allows them to act unprofessionally when it suits them. One of the ethical tenets of health care professionalism is that of patient autonomy. We do not impose our personal beliefs on our patients. We are engaged to help them achieve their goals for themselves, not what we think their goals for themselves ought to be, taking into account the generally recognized standards of care, etc.

No one is bound and obligated to behave in a way that violates their conscience. They are free to leave the profession if they cannot conscientiously fulfill their duties, and that would be the course of someone who really had the moral high ground. But people who want to refuse to fulfill their duties without consequence simply don't have sincere courage of commitment. They want to exercise their prejudices without bearing any personal cost, to continue to enjoy the benefits and privileges of professional practice despite failing to uphold the ethical standards of the profession.

You don't want to dispense legally prescribed drugs because you are opposed to the use to which they will be put? Very well. I applaud your strong conscience. Quit your job and go work in another industry. Freedom doesn't mean getting everything you want. It means that you are able to make decisions and face their consequences... just as you are so eager to tell others to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
I support this. We should have absolute autonomy. I'm not down with the slippery slope. Because some day euthenasia is going to be legalized and I don't want any part of that. There are a bazillion pharmacists. If one doesn't want to contribute to an abortion, go to one that will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
The point being made is that there are many people (Texas and Georgia come to mind) in rural areas that do not have adequate access to healthcare services. It isn't just about "abortion pills" either. There are pharmacists working in corporate retail who refuse to fill birth control but have no problem filling Cialis or Viagra. Once you sign on the dotted line that says you accept this offer of employment, you're making a conscious decision to provide service and patient care to the best of your professional ability. CVS/Wags/Wally/Target/hospital pharmacies all stock the "morally offending" medications on their shelves with the understanding/expectation that the employees that they're paying are providing them to their patients. Ease of access is a huge issue in rural America, so by denying meds or services based on your personal moral code you're allowing personal judgement to override professional judgement. Sometimes it's as easy as allowing your partner to fill it, but not always. Patients have the right to a reasonable expectation of service from an employee of a company where they wish to fill their meds. So if someone other than yourself is signing your paycheck you need to check your personal moral code at the door so it doesn't cloud your professional decision-making skills.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I support this. We should have absolute autonomy. I'm not down with the slippery slope. Because some day euthenasia is going to be legalized and I don't want any part of that. There are a bazillion pharmacists. If one doesn't want to contribute to an abortion, go to one that will.

You can always quit. The autonomy belongs to the patients.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I support this. We should have absolute autonomy. I'm not down with the slippery slope. Because some day euthenasia is going to be legalized and I don't want any part of that. There are a bazillion pharmacists. If one doesn't want to contribute to an abortion, go to one that will.

What's wrong with assisted suicide? Why should a person not have the ability to end their own life?
 
I see the conscience argument as people wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to practice a profession, but be able to pull out a conscience card that allows them to act unprofessionally when it suits them. One of the ethical tenets of health care professionalism is that of patient autonomy. We do not impose our personal beliefs on our patients. We are engaged to help them achieve their goals for themselves, not what we think their goals for themselves ought to be, taking into account the generally recognized standards of care, etc.

No one is bound and obligated to behave in a way that violates their conscience. They are free to leave the profession if they cannot conscientiously fulfill their duties, and that would be the course of someone who really had the moral high ground. But people who want to refuse to fulfill their duties without consequence simply don't have sincere courage of commitment. They want to exercise their prejudices without bearing any personal cost, to continue to enjoy the benefits and privileges of professional practice despite failing to uphold the ethical standards of the profession.

You don't want to dispense legally prescribed drugs because you are opposed to the use to which they will be put? Very well. I applaud your strong conscience. Quit your job and go work in another industry. Freedom doesn't mean getting everything you want. It means that you are able to make decisions and face their consequences... just as you are so eager to tell others to do.

Ha ha ha. "Have the same beliefs as me or leave!" Really? That is patently ridiculous. The person just refers the patient to a different practitioner that will help them.

Its fun being an atheistic antiideologist (a term I made up to describe myself) because you get to fully enjoy when religious or political ideologues go full fascism with a completely straight face...and they don't even realize it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The point being made is that there are many people (Texas and Georgia come to mind) in rural areas that do not have adequate access to healthcare services. It isn't just about "abortion pills" either. There are pharmacists working in corporate retail who refuse to fill birth control but have no problem filling Cialis or Viagra. Once you sign on the dotted line that says you accept this offer of employment, you're making a conscious decision to provide service and patient care to the best of your professional ability. CVS/Wags/Wally/Target/hospital pharmacies all stock the "morally offending" medications on their shelves with the understanding/expectation that the employees that they're paying are providing them to their patients. Ease of access is a huge issue in rural America, so by denying meds or services based on your personal moral code you're allowing personal judgement to override professional judgement. Sometimes it's as easy as allowing your partner to fill it, but not always. Patients have the right to a reasonable expectation of service from an employee of a company where they wish to fill their meds. So if someone other than yourself is signing your paycheck you need to check your personal moral code at the door so it doesn't cloud your professional decision-making skills.

you are conflating two issues...one is an employer offering you money for an expected set of behaviors, if you don't want to offer those they can fire you. The other is the government taking away your license, which is far...far...different
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You can always quit. The autonomy belongs to the patients.

The thought that ethics have no part in the medical industry is ridiculous. The entirety of autonomy absolutely and unequivocally does not 100% belong to the patient. This is an intellectually infantile stance to have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
you are conflating two issues...one is an employer offering you money for an expected set of behaviors, if you don't want to offer those they can fire you. The other is the government taking away your license, which is far...far...different
I see what you're saying. I was just pointing out that we as healthcare providers cannot force our personal moral guidelines on our patients. I don't think I mentioned anything about licensing.
 
What's wrong with assisted suicide? Why should a person not have the ability to end their own life?

I'm fine with people having the right to do what they please. I'm not a fascist. I don't oppose abortion, either. I just couldn't handle a suicidal person personally. I've had multiple close family members attempt suicide and I just don't want any part of it due to my life experience. I'll dispense whatever abortion meds you want, though. Don't give a single damn about that one.
 
I see what you're saying. I was just pointing out that we as healthcare providers cannot force our personal moral guidelines on our patients. I don't think I mentioned anything about licensing.

I'm not forcing anything on someone by not participating in a transaction. We both have a human right to walk away from any interaction against our conscience
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
There has to be a balance between the best interest of the patient and that of the pharmacist. If a patient is prescribed a prescription she should have the right to it. At the same time I understand for those who truly believe that abortion is murder this gets hairy. I think at minimum if you are going to object you need to inform someone before hand - I would feel like a real dingus if I prescribed something only to send my pt to a pharmacy that wouldn't serve her. If we are going to say that it's okay to refuse, it's only reasonable to let providers know ahead of time so that they can then send patients to the proper place that will dispense the drugs prescribed. Those seeking abortion have enough hoops to jump through already without adding having to drive around hoping someone will fill a freaking prescription. I have a real problem with the issue of access and I don't really have a solution to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I'm fine with people having the right to do what they please. I'm not a fascist. I don't oppose abortion, either. I just couldn't handle a suicidal person personally. I've had multiple close family members attempt suicide and I just don't want any part of it due to my life experience. I'll dispense whatever abortion meds you want, though. Don't give a single damn about that one.

So, it isn't a matter of ethics, but of your own personal feelings on the topic and what you can't handle due to your own traumatic life experiences. So, your feelings trump those of the patient.

Okay, tell me again about my infantile stance?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I'm not forcing anything on someone by not participating in a transaction. We both have a human right to walk away from any interaction against our conscience

Sure, but asking to retain your position and privileges is not "walking away." You do have human rights. And exercising them might impart a cost to you. I find it interesting that people who are so big on the idea of personal responsibility and bearing the costs of one's decisions have this enormous blind spot about applying that standard to themselves.
 
I'm not forcing anything on someone by not participating in a transaction. We both have a human right to walk away from any interaction against our conscience
You are if you consider that YOUR moral compass is prohibiting the patient from obtaining a legal prescription. You're then forcing the patient to seek care elsewhere even though they have a valid script simply because you "object" to it. You do have the human right to walk away, but you will also deal with the consequences of your decision. The patient has the right to walk into a corporate retailer or a hospital and expect a reasonable level of service, free of personal judgement. If they do not receive that level of service, they also have the right to report your decision which could result in negative consequences for you as a professional.
 
I'm not forcing anything on someone by not participating in a transaction. We both have a human right to walk away from any interaction against our conscience

If someone cannot get a medication because you refuse to dispense it, you absolutely are forcing something on them - maybe just an inconvenience in many cases, maybe more if they are not able to get the medication at all.

If you can't do the job, you shouldn't take the job. You can work in any number of practice settings (or different jobs/professions) where the issue would never come up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
you are conflating two issues...one is an employer offering you money for an expected set of behaviors, if you don't want to offer those they can fire you. The other is the government taking away your license, which is far...far...different

I'm not saying that the government should take away your license. (And let's be honest, the body removing your license would be your representatives on you professional board, not some evil foreign dictator.)

I'm saying that if you don't want to fulfill your professional obligations, you should have the moral courage to voluntarily surrender your license, or at least cease practicing where you are/find a different job that doesn't require you to behave unprofessionally in order to protect your personal feelings about the matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
So, it isn't a matter of ethics, but of your own personal feelings on the topic and what you can't handle due to your own traumatic life experiences. So, your feelings trump those of the patient.

Okay, tell me again about my infantile stance?

Well, it is still an ethical matter. Not that it matters, nor am I interested in a pointless argument right now. But I simply feel that no one person should have their personal ethics trumped by one other person. Be it a patient or practitioner. Its this idea that there is one grand "correct" ethical stance is what is infantile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
If I, as a nurse, chose not to administer drugs that were legally prescribed by a physician and dispensed by a pharmacist because of my deeply held personal beliefs, I would certainly lose my job for it. Should I have the right to keep that job and impose my will on my patients?

I've seen nurses refuse to administer properly prescribed and dispensed morphine to acutely injured trauma patients that they decided were drug-seeking junkies because of the patient's appearance / tattoos. That is no different to me than a pharmacist deciding not to dispense based upon their personal belief. It is unprofessional behavior dressed up as morality, and I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.

As someone who will someday be writing prescriptions, with the expectation that a pharmacist will cooperate to fill them, I have an interest in this debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
If I, as a nurse, chose not to administer drugs that were legally prescribed by a physician and dispensed by a pharmacist because of my deeply held personal beliefs, I would certainly lose my job for it. Should I have the right to keep that job and impose my will on my patients?

I've seen nurses refuse to administer properly prescribed and dispensed morphine to acutely injured trauma patients that they decided were drug-seeking junkies because of the patient's appearance / tattoos. That is no different to me than a pharmacist deciding not to dispense based upon their personal belief. It is unprofessional behavior dressed up as morality, and I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.

As someone who will someday be writing prescriptions, with the expectation that a pharmacist will cooperate to fill them, I have an interest in this debate.

that pharmacist is not your employee...which would be the only situation in which the physician's opinion matters as to punishment for not disbursing
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If I, as a nurse, chose not to administer drugs that were legally prescribed by a physician and dispensed by a pharmacist because of my deeply held personal beliefs, I would certainly lose my job for it.

Nah. Another nurse would probably just do it. The nurses unions are ridiculously strong.

I've seen nurses refuse to administer properly prescribed and dispensed morphine to acutely injured trauma patients that they decided were drug-seeking junkies because of the patient's appearance / tattoos. That is no different to me than a pharmacist deciding not to dispense based upon their personal belief. It is unprofessional behavior dressed up as morality, and I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.

As someone who will someday be writing prescriptions, with the expectation that a pharmacist will cooperate to fill them, I have an interest in this debate.

Yeah, well, pharmacists are not your lapdog, so get that entire thought out of your head now. We have autonomy. If you don't like it, go establish a dictatorship somewhere and decree laws saying that pharmacists always have to do what physicians say.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top