Catholic Pharmacist?

[rck104]

I have to say that I'm frustrated with many of the responses on this thread. The OP knew that this was a controversial issue, and was merely trying to find information without stirring up a controversy. I thought the whole point of SDN was for students to gain access to information from their peers that would be written in a cogent and professional manner. Berating the OP or telling him/her to get another line of work is useless at best.

Perhaps we should be more careful in our responses. We decry unscrupulous pharmacists that commit crimes, and then attack interested students for daring to have a conscience and being willing to stick to their morals. I only wish the industry had more people that were conscientious, and then we wouldn't have so many pharmacists diluting cancer drugs or selling steroids out the back door to make more money.

To those of you who don't know an area of pharmacy in which the OP can work and avoid a moral dilemma: It's OK to admit your ignorance or to say that you don't know the answer. The pharmacists to which I've talked, have told me the great thing about pharmacy is that it has something for everyone! So how about acting like the professionals we claim to be?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Farmercyst]

I'm not sure why everyone got in a tissy over whether or not the guy has to dispense or not. Go into industry, managed care, somewhere other than outpatient dispensary. FDA, CDC. Who cares what his moral/religious beliefs about BC are in those settings. Quite frankly if the guys not gonna bother posting, what difference does it make anyway.?

 

[ValeRx]

I'm not sure why everyone got in a tissy over whether or not the guy has to dispense or not. Go into industry, managed care, somewhere other than outpatient dispensary. FDA, CDC. Who cares what his moral/religious beliefs about BC are in those settings. Quite frankly if the guys not gonna bother posting, what difference does it make anyway.?

Good point. I'm going to start making new accounts and posting controversial questions and then sitting back and watching the show.

 

[UES Girl]

Good point. I'm going to start making new accounts and posting controversial questions and then sitting back and watching the show.

That's the exact definition of trolling and against TOS, you should be banned if you do that.

 

[Regnvejr]

Someone asked what is the Christian view on Birth Control. Here it is:..

Well, that's the baptist version. As a Christian, I disagree.

 

[charfdorn]

Agreed. Its 2009 not 1899 Why are people still soooooo close minded?

I'm confused how condemning someone else's dearly held, age-old religious beliefs is open-minded. Just because you're progressive enough to believe in all sorts of women's rights and enlightened enough to know the difference between a zygote and an adult human doesn't mean everyone else HAS to be. Aren't you enforcing your value system on everybody else here?

I just want you to be consistent with your open-mindedness.

 

[UES Girl]

I'm confused how condemning someone else's dearly held, age-old religious beliefs is open-minded.

The same way how it's hypocritical to ask people to be open-minded about close-minded beliefs, even if they are 'dearly held and age-old'.

 

[FarscapeGirl]

I'm confused how condemning someone else's dearly held, age-old religious beliefs is open-minded. Just because you're progressive enough to believe in all sorts of women's rights and enlightened enough to know the difference between a zygote and an adult human doesn't mean everyone else HAS to be. Aren't you enforcing your value system on everybody else here?

I just want you to be consistent with your open-mindedness.

It's actually a pretty recent thought that it's immoral for a woman to end a pregnancy. It used to be believed that a soul did not enter the body of the fetus until quickening, when the fetus began to move. This was even in the early part of the 1900s, I believe. So it is not an age-old religious belief to be against women controlling their fertility.

I have no idea what SHC1984 thinks, but I believe it is close-minded and a way to control women when people want to refuse them birth control and abortions. It is riskier for a woman to go through a full-term pregnancy than a medically-safe abortion (or preventing pregnancy though birth control, for that matter). Pregnancy is hard on a woman's body and affects all areas of her life. And most people who are against birth control and abortion seem to have little thought for the kids that are born when women don't have access to them.

I have no problem not wanting to personally use birth control or personally get an abortion. I'd have a hard time getting an abortion myself, especially since I'm married and at a stage in my life where I could mentally handle a child. I just believe it's morally wrong to prevent others from making that choice.

You wouldn't believe the amount of people who are against abortion until they're faced with a difficult situation themselves. There's also the cases where people want to refuse a woman an abortion when the fetus has such severe birth defects that it would barely survive after birth. I can't imagine being pregnant with a baby that didn't have a brain and having to carry it for several months and then give birth.

So it's really not close-minded to be frustrated with people for wanting to refuse all women the right to use birth control, Plan B, or abortions.

 

[charfdorn]

The same way how it's hypocritical to ask people to be open-minded about close-minded beliefs, even if they are 'dearly held and age-old'.

Oh. Right. So.... everyone be open-minded if they want to be? But if not, that's cool, too?

 

[UES Girl]

Oh. Right. So.... everyone be open-minded if they want to be? But if not, that's cool, too?

Don't get your comment exactly (what are you trying to imply exactly ) - but seeing how I'm reading a book about abortion clinic bombings by self-righteous religious fanatics, I think it's a bit hypocrytical to ask public to be open-minded when the author himself is not.

 

[charfdorn]

Don't get your comment exactly (what are you trying to imply exactly ) - but seeing how I'm reading a book about abortion clinic bombings by self-righteous religious fanatics, I think it's a bit hypocrytical to ask public to be open-minded when the author himself is not.

Well, it's apparently hypocritical to criticize anyone for being close-minded, so I decided my point should be that you should be open-minded if you want to. Or not. I'm cool with both.

 

[jasonbourne]

I am new to this forum so please bare with me. I am a senior in high school and am considering a career in pharmacy. I have a moral dilemma and that is that I am catholic and do not want to put myself in a situation that might compromise my religious beliefs as far as the dispensing of birth control pills and abortifacients. No, I don't need a speech telling me I should just dispense and go against my religious beliefs. I am wondering if a career in pharmacy is possible without having to deal with such drugs. Would specializing in a certain area of pharmacy such as pediatric pharmacy or toxicology prevent me from being in a position I am not morally comfortable with? Please no judgements. I am not asking if a pharmacist has the "right to refuse," I'm looking for a way to not be in that situation to begin with. Thank you.

I understand your dileema. If the state requires you not to deny a patient such pills, sorry to say you might have no option. Keep in mind that personally, U dont support it. However you must fufill your obligations as a pharmacist ie providing the pills. Some people are not religious, and religion is a personal thing. If someone does not believe in GOD, you cant force that on him due to freedom of religion. However, If the state gives you the right of choice, You should simply not do it. Let the person obtain them through some other means. Remember, U should always ask for wisdom from above and the storm would be over

 

[jasonbourne]

this reminds me of similar constructive discussions during the presidential campaign. Such dialogue helps us better think through issues that affect the society

 

[madbeemer1]

Well, that's the baptist version. As a Christian, I disagree.

Well, that's [ http://faithfulwordbaptist.org/Birth_Control.html ] the Biblical reasoning with discussion of the mechanism of birth control. With what do you disagree?

Adding to jason's above comment...

If there is a law opposing God's [moral] law, then that law from man should not be obeyed. Remember, for example, the story of Daniel and the lion's den. If the state requires you to not deny such pills, then, as the apostle Paul said, "We ought to obey God rather than man". Any obligation as a pharmacist comes second to that of obedience to God. In this case it isn't about forcing beliefs on someone, but rather the pharmacist's desire to not be responsible the things in the article above. Ie., murder and the unintentional ending of life.

 

[thaliagoo]

Don't pay attention to the people who tell you to go in another field. They probably feel you are a threat to their admission/job Anyways, to answer your question, pharmacists are not all about dispensing. You can specialized in many fields: infectious disease, cancer, transplantation and you probably never have to deal with stuff like birth control. Good luck!

 

[Regnvejr]

Well, that's [ http://faithfulwordbaptist.org/Birth_Control.html ] the Biblical reasoning with discussion of the mechanism of birth control.

That's still the Baptist version.

If there is a law opposing God's [moral] law, then that law from man should not be obeyed.

Not according to your license.

Any obligation as a pharmacist comes second to that of obedience to God.

I think that one stands just fine by itself as illustration.

 

[a runner]

That's still the Baptist version.
Not according to your license.

I think that one stands just fine by itself as illustration.

Your self-righteous and condescending attitute along with your intolerance of other's convictions are what bother me about most Christians.

Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Naturalist, whatever... I (and most people) respect others who humbly have convictions, but not those who display prideful arrogance.

 

[a runner]

Don't get your comment exactly (what are you trying to imply exactly ) - but seeing how I'm reading a book about abortion clinic bombings by self-righteous religious fanatics, I think it's a bit hypocrytical to ask public to be open-minded when the author himself is not.

Don't you think that's a little unfair? Lumping the people on here who are against abortion and/or birth control for religious reasons to abortion clinic bombers is akin to saying that all Muslims should be lumped together with the militant jihadists. Both are wrong.

By the way, being open-minded doesn't mean you ascribe to a certain set of beliefs, it means that you respect and understand other viewpoints and allow others to hold those views and live their lives accordingly. So calling someone "close-minded" just because they don't ascribe to your set of beliefs isn't necessarily accurate, and could be viewed as a bit close-minded itself.

 

[a runner]

Well, that's [ http://faithfulwordbaptist.org/Birth_Control.html ] the Biblical reasoning with discussion of the mechanism of birth control. With what do you disagree?

Adding to jason's above comment...

If there is a law opposing God's [moral] law, then that law from man should not be obeyed. Remember, for example, the story of Daniel and the lion's den. If the state requires you to not deny such pills, then, as the apostle Paul said, "We ought to obey God rather than man". Any obligation as a pharmacist comes second to that of obedience to God. In this case it isn't about forcing beliefs on someone, but rather the pharmacist's desire to not be responsible the things in the article above. Ie., murder and the unintentional ending of life.

I really believe that when there is a case of moral law contradicting state law, it would be better to go about lobbying to change or challenging a law rather than violating it.

 

[FarscapeGirl]

I really believe that when there is a case of moral law contradicting state law, it would be better to go about lobbying to change or challenging a law rather than violating it.

There's kind of a big problem with that. Everyone's moral law is a little bit different. In this case, the people who are against birth control are in a much smaller proportion than those who have no problem with it.

Personally, I believe that if you have any problem dispensing or prescribing any medication that is legally available, you should not go into that profession. And yes, I believe this is still the case if you're an obstetrician who is opposed to abortion. While I think it is fine if you don't want to provide abortions to women to which it is not medically necessary, I believe you should still know the technique to help women who have only partially miscarried, those that have medical reasons to not be pregnant, and those that are carrying non-viable fetuses.

I realize this is not everyone's belief, but it is my moral law.

 

[a runner]

There's kind of a big problem with that. Everyone's moral law is a little bit different. In this case, the people who are against birth control are in a much smaller proportion than those who have no problem with it.

I agree with your sentiments and appreciate your open-mindedness. Understanding that everyone's moral law is a little bit different is important.

That is the great (and terrible) thing of a democratic society... the will of the majority vs. the rights of the minority. I agree that we who have no problem with BC greatly outnumber those who are against it, but I say let's not infringe their rights and force them to dispense it. I see freedom of conscience as their right, and even if they are in the minority, it should be protected. Someday there MAY be a drug that is legal and I disagree with dispensing it and want to have the right to refuse... not in order to take away the patient's rights and prevent them from getting the medication, but as to be able to have a free conscience by not being the enabler (ie: let's say a drug gets approved and becomes commonly used for date rape, I would want to reserve the right to refuse to dispense it).

I wasn't saying for them to lobby for a law restricting BC, but rather to challenge or lobby against the laws in the four states that require them to dispense every prescription (if they disagree with those laws).

 

[Jdario86]

I think it's safe to say that the majority on this forum thinks it's ok to believe in any religion. Acting on those religious beliefs and imposing them on another individual in a clinical setting is an entirely different issue with serious ramifications. Just because one is going to let their daughter keep their baby after getting raped, doesn't mean that someone else is going to.


It still disturbs me that there are pharmacists/aspiring pharmacists who think its okay to exercise religion in a pharmacy. Quite frankly, I'm embarrassed as an aspiring pharmacist (and someone who was raised catholic) that dispensing BC would even be an issue on this forum and that there are other medical professionals from different forums reading this.


I understand how some of you think that keeping an open-mind attitude to different morals/beliefs can pacify differences but on the same accord I refuse to "respect" the beliefs of the KKK.

 

[Regnvejr]

That is the great (and terrible) thing of a democratic society... the will of the majority vs. the rights of the minority. I agree that we who have no problem with BC greatly outnumber those who are against it, but I say let's not infringe their rights and force them to dispense it. I see freedom of conscience as their right, and even if they are in the minority, it should be protected.

Certainly. But it doesn't mean that you can inflict it on patients and let them suffer.

Someday there MAY be a drug that is legal and I disagree with dispensing it and want to have the right to refuse... not in order to take away the patient's rights and prevent them from getting the medication, but as to be able to have a free conscience by not being the enabler (ie: let's say a drug gets approved and becomes commonly used for date rape, I would want to reserve the right to refuse to dispense it).

But if it is found medically necessary, at least you need to refer to someone who will prescribe it.

If you have a medical concern about the medication, then the physician better listen to you. But if your reply is that you don't like the idea of the treatment, then you need to send the patient on without to much hardship.

And if you enter your profession deliberately to hinder patient access, then you have no business in that profession.

I wasn't saying for them to lobby for a law restricting BC, but rather to challenge or lobby against the laws in the four states that require them to dispense every prescription (if they disagree with those laws).

Most states allow alternative means. But inflicting hardship onto patients per personal beliefs, that's unethical.

 

[madbeemer1]

Regnvjer: You seem to dismiss the article because it is Baptist. Do you have something against the view of Bible-believing Christians?

You reject what is so clearly shown that life begins at conception both scientifically and Biblically. So, you believe that we should disregard God's commandments (ie "Thou shalt not kill") just because a license or official calls for it? In what way do you disagree with the argument made in the article? Are you with God or not with what we find He says in His Word?

"He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth." Luke 11:23

So you say that because of our license, God comes second? So then you must also support the people who killed Terri Schiavo because they were just doing their job, right? How about a skilled defense lawyer who gets a known child-molester off the hook? Is the abortion doctor just doing his job? At what point does one become accountable to God for the job they do?

You agree that the freedom of conscience is a right but then "[...] it doesn't mean that you can inflict it on patients and let them suffer."

By what way is not dispensing BC cause suffering? Yeah, childbirth is painful. Science and the Bible tells us that (Gen 3:16). But, what about the ending of a person's life?

“Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.” – Psalm 127:3
​

 

[jasonbourne]

Even though there is freedom of speech, It is better to give this person your opinion rather than going into some sort of Religious battle. We are all different and i think we can all answer the question rather than judging. This is a very interesting question.

 

[a runner]

But if it is found medically necessary, at least you need to refer to someone who will prescribe it.

Agreed. I think we can find some common ground here. I personally feel this is the professional thing to do, though I can see some objections from those who would feel they are being complicit by doing this.

 

[a runner]

Quite frankly, I'm embarrassed as an aspiring pharmacist (and someone who was raised catholic) that dispensing BC would even be an issue on this forum and that there are other medical professionals from different forums reading this.

Well don't be embarrassed. This thread [http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=587253] is a very insightful discussion where most of the participants are physicians or medical students that Regnvejr posted in another thread. Some of the very same topics were discussed, and most participants seemed to be accepting of a pharmacist's right to refuse, regardless of whether they agreed with it or not.

 

[UES Girl]

Well don't be embarrassed. This thread [http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=587253] is a very insightful discussion where most of the participants are physicians or medical students that Regnvejr posted in another thread. Some of the very same topics were discussed, and most participants seemed to be accepting of a pharmacist's right to refuse, regardless of whether they agreed with it or not.

Thanks for posting that, here is an excellent post from pharmavixen that sums up the issue in a simplistic eloquence:

" We have personal values and professional ethics, and part of being a professional is keeping those separate.

If somebody doesn't like OCs, they can choose not to take them. But if you refuse to dispense them, you're forcing your morality on another person. Sure, it's not a big deal, practically speaking; the patient can just go to another pharmacy. But refusing to provide a service for which you were trained for reasons that have nothing to do with health care is unethical because it's a violation of the trust placed in health care professionals when they are licensed.

In the US and Canada we have separation of church and state. More than anything, Bush's bill is about eroding that separation by way of giving religious people special protections under the law. It's not about protecting anybody's rights -- it's about power for the religious right. Is that a precedent you want to be setting?

I remain suspicious of the motives of pharmacists who protest that they can't dispense a drug that 80% of women take at some point in their lives. Did these pharmacists really have no idea what they were getting into? "

 

[Regnvejr]

Regnvjer: You seem to dismiss the article because it is Baptist.​

Nope, it may be perfectly OK for Baptists. I'm dismissing the claim that it represents Christianity in general.

Do you have something against the view of Bible-believing Christians?

Oh yes, as compared to Christians who do NOT believe in the Bible? That's a lame dig. Sophistry doesn't suit you.

You reject what is so clearly shown that life begins at conception

For that SUBJECTIVE CLAIM to be factual, it would mean that there is no life before conception, that sperm and egg are not live cells. Also a bogus premise.

both scientifically

Clearly false, per the above.

and Biblically.

Biblically, individual life (not just generic and simplistic, "life") begins at Nemeth, first breath. So that also is not an accurate, not absolutist claim, your assertion none withstanding. I suggest you are more careful about making absolutist claims.

So, you believe that we should disregard God's commandments (ie "Thou shalt not kill")

A very generic term, utterly useless. You eating a piece of lettuce means that you kill cells. So you need something much more specific. Platitudes really won't gain you anything here.

just because a license or official calls for it? In what way do you disagree with the argument made in the article? Are you with God or not with what we find He says in His Word?

I am not with the Baptists. To claim that I am not with God, that's a flat-out lie. Now you are bearing false witness and distorting God's message for the sake of your political agenda. That's despicable. Pure blasphemy.​

"He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth." Luke 11:23

And when you are bearing false witness, then you clearly are NOT "with" Jesus in any way.

So you say that because of our license, God comes second?

Yes. Your license is you accepting the laws, rules and regulations of your profession. If you cannot reconcile your beliefs and Faith with your license, then your acceptance of your license is a false oath.

So then you must also support the people who killed Terri Schiavo because they were just doing their job, right?

Terri Schiavo, a person in a persistent vegetative state merely had her life support measures terminated, as happens many times daily throughout the American medical system. Her grand-parents, politicians and the political establishment behaved disgracefully in their interventions and their many lies spewed in that case. So yes, I agree with Terri Schiavo's husband and disagree with the grand-parents, politicians and the religious establishment that decided to play dirty and dishonest politics with a person's dignity. You have a problem with that?

How about a skilled defense lawyer who gets a known child-molester off the hook?

What about it? If the prosecution is not doing their job, then they are at fault. If there is not sufficient evidence, then how do you know that it is a "known" child molester? Because you decided the person is guilty merely per the accusation? Your disregard for the law or evidence required for a guilty-charge is also duly noted. It is beginning to look pretty bleak for your integrity here. Basing your argument on moral outrage without any factual foundation really does not put you in a good position.

Is the abortion doctor just doing his job?

Yes.

At what point does one become accountable to God for the job they do?

At any and all times, they become personally accountable to God. They do NOT become accountable to you or to a uniquely Baptist interpretation of God.

You agree that the freedom of conscience is a right but then "[...] it doesn't mean that you can inflict it on patients and let them suffer."

Correct. part of you obtaining a license is that you work for your patients, not for your religious dogma.

By what way is not dispensing BC cause suffering?

Oh, numerous reasons. Suffering from the polycystic ovary disease you refuse to provide treatment for. Treatment of the dysmenorrhea you refuse to provide treatment for. The pregnancy that causes harm to the woman's body at varying levels, the unwanted pregnancy that causes hardship and may cause the woman to seek out an abortion instead, having to endure a medical procedure instead of taking a pill. It causes harm in many different ways on many different levels. If you want to determine what medication is prescribed, then you should have gone to medical school instead.

Yeah, childbirth is painful. Science and the Bible tells us that (Gen 3:16).

And so does medical science.

But, what about the ending of a person's life?

Utterly irrelevant, as no person's life is ended through the regular use of contraception. The zygote is not a person, your emotional histrionics none withstanding.

“Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.” – Psalm 127:3

Ah, spewing selective verses, quote-mining the Bible. Shame on you. You missed the other ones:

Hosea 9:11-16 The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children."

Numbers 31:17 “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.”

Hosea 13:16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."
2 Kings 15:16 At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women.
Ezekiel 9:5-7 Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told."
1 Samuel 15:3 This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.'
Psalms 135:8 He struck down the firstborn of Egypt, the firstborn of men and animals.
Psalms 137:9 he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
Leviticus 20:9 “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.”
Judges 11:31-39 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon. When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break." "My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry." "You may go," he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin

Psalms 137:8-9 0 daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”
2 Kings 6:28-29 “And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.”
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”
Judges 19:24-29 “Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.”
Exodus 12:29-30 And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died
Leviticus 26:30 “And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.”
Isaiah 13:15-18 Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.
Jeremiah 51:20-26 "You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD.
Joshua 6:20-21 When the people heard the sound of the horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it. They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything.

 

[Lance13]

If you intend to practice your moral beliefs within the pharmaceutical sciences, expect a lot of people who will criticize you. I commend your audacity to stand up for your moral beliefs but the general notion with practicing religion in a clinical/scientific setting is considered unorthodox and frowned upon by many professionals. And that is not an opinion, that is a valid observation. I know many pharmacists who are very religious but they know how to draw the line between professionalism and religion.

Cest la vie.

For the most part, if you intend to seek validation for your religious convictions within this pre-pharm forum, you will not find a lot of people who will agree with you - especially on the pharmacy student forum bc mostly everyone in that forum are either accepted pharm students, actual students or professional pharmacists.

good luck

 

[slight365]

I worked at a pharmacy and on the day I was off, one of the pharmacists refused to sell a teenage girl PlanB. She wanted to know who she can get it from, and was given cold responses. The RPh was devoutly Catholic. In any event, it was his judgement that he would not sell or stock the stuff because she should deal with it and he doesn't believe in abortion of any form.

The physician who was treating her and recommended the PlanB tried to call in a Levora to be taken in one shot, and the supervisor (also very religious) refused, on the grounds that he will not fill a prescription for the purposes of emergency contraception.

The next day, county representatives, Planned Parenthood, and protestors arrived in the store, trying to force comments and having a protest in the parking lot that was televised challenging pharmacist responsibility, and insertion of their private lives into making judgements about others and how it doesn't align with professional conduct. In this case, a condom broke on this teenage patient, and she immediately saw a physician the next morning, and was refused her planB and also that we didn't stock it for the same reasons above. Shortly after, we, and others began stocking it regularly.

Additionally, both were using forms of birth control in their private lives that the church frowns upon, so there's a double standard out there.

I've also seen lots of vicodin go out to transients, knowing they had some scam going with the docs and RX Mills. No moral intervention there.

 

[Jdario86]

I want to know what'.s the point. What are pharmaci..st..s.. trying to prove by exerci..sing religion in a pharmacy like refu..sing to di..spen..se birth control or plan b?

Even if pharmaci..st..s are going to refu..se:.
.People are ..still going to have pre-marital ..sex. Women can ..still get pregnant after rape. Women will continue getting abortion..s. Pharma will continue manufacturing plan b and birth control.


I..s it really worth it to ri..sk profe..s..sional reputation and your licen..se over per..sonal ..religiou..s conviction..s? If ..so, what wa..s the point of going into pharmacy?.......... ...

 

[jraider]

Well being Catholic and a pharmacy student who does have retail experience, I know what your problem is. At first I could not see myself filling a birth control pill, but as I talked to my priest about whether it was morally correct for me to fill them. He told me as long as I was not prescribing the medication then it was ok as long as we explained to the patient alternatives to birth control such as abstinence. As for Plan B, my pharmacy does not carry it because the owner of the pharmacy chooses not to so therefore we cannot dispense it. If we did, I would deny the patient the Plan B if they tried to buy it without a prescription and probably with a prescription as well. I think I would have simply to say we do not carry it or we are out and tell of a place that might have it. Being Catholic is not something that should keep you from being a pharmacist because you can be one and still keep your morals.

 

[slight365]

I want to know what'.s the point. What are pharmaci..st..s.. trying to prove by exerci..sing religion in a pharmacy like refu..sing to di..spen..se birth control or plan b?

Even if pharmaci..st..s are going to refu..se:.
.People are ..still going to have pre-marital ..sex. Women can ..still get pregnant after rape. Women will continue getting abortion..s. Pharma will continue manufacturing plan b and birth control.


I..s it really worth it to ri..sk profe..s..sional reputation and your licen..se over per..sonal ..religiou..s conviction..s? If ..so, what wa..s the point of going into pharmacy?.

One case we had at another store was a rape victim. The RPh refused to sell, order, or find another store with it in stock. After the fact we found out, and the pharmacist was not phased. Even in rape, he still didn't believe in emergency contraception or abortion.

...this was until this threatened his livelihood. Then all of a sudden, these self-righteous pharmacists started selling Plan B, no problem. It's all moral until it's about the money.

 

[Jdario86]

Well being Catholic and a pharmacy student who does have retail experience, I know what your problem is. At first I could not see myself filling a birth control pill, but as I talked to my priest about whether it was morally correct for me to fill them. He told me as long as I was not prescribing the medication then it was ok as long as we explained to the patient alternatives to birth control such as abstinence. As for Plan B, my pharmacy does not carry it because the owner of the pharmacy chooses not to so therefore we cannot dispense it. If we did, I would deny the patient the Plan B if they tried to buy it without a prescription and probably with a prescription as well. I think I would have simply to say we do not carry it or we are out and tell of a place that might have it. Being Catholic is not something that should keep you from being a pharmacist because you can be one and still keep your morals.

so you consulted a priest for advice on how to do a pharmacist job? as someone who was raised catholic, that's really embarrassing.

 

[jraider]

WOW.. You took it the wrong way. I just did not feel right when I was dispensing it, so I asked my priest for his thoughts. He then explained to me his reasoning on the subject and it helped me out. You can be embarrassed of your religion but I am not.

 

[slight365]

Wow, that is embarassing that someone above had to consult with their religion. How about stepping back one day, stand outside of yourself and your religion, and go through one day stripped of everything, leaving life to just yourself, your own morals, and your own inherent will to do good, or what is right, at the least, in a highly complex world that works outside of a book.

Now here's my contribution to that from an interview with Tom Araya of Slayer.

When asked about the fact that he is a Christian and the subject matter of Slayer's music and artwork, he had this to say:

On possible issues between his Catholic faith and the band's subject matter:"Kerry's written some really far-out ****. If it's a good song, I'm not one that's going to go, 'This sucks because it's contrary to my beliefs.' To me it's more like, 'This is really good stuff. You're going to piss people off with this.'
"People have these heavy issues and ask, 'Isn't this a problem for you?' and no. I'm well-rounded, I have a really strong belief system and these are just words and they'll never interfere with what I believe and how I feel.
"People are not in good shape to where they have to question their own belief system because of a book or a story somebody wrote, or a SLAYER song."


It also must be noted he has a Christian band with Slayer's drummer, Dave Lombardo.

Slayer's disco, with which they've sold many millions of albums worldwide:

Show No Mercy • Hell Awaits • Reign in Blood • South of Heaven • Seasons in the Abyss • Divine Intervention • Diabolus in Musica • God Hates Us All • Christ Illusion

 

[slight365]

Wow, that is embarassing that someone above had to consult with their religion. How about stepping back one day, stand outside of yourself and your religion, and go through one day stripped of everything, leaving life to just yourself, your own morals, and your own inherent will to do good, or what is right, at the least, in a highly complex world that works outside of a book.

Now here's my contribution to that from an interview with Tom Araya of Slayer.

When asked about the fact that he is a Christian and the subject matter of Slayer's music and artwork, he had this to say:

On possible issues between his Catholic faith and the band's subject matter:"Kerry's written some really far-out ****. If it's a good song, I'm not one that's going to go, 'This sucks because it's contrary to my beliefs.' To me it's more like, 'This is really good stuff. You're going to piss people off with this.'
"People have these heavy issues and ask, 'Isn't this a problem for you?' and no. I'm well-rounded, I have a really strong belief system and these are just words and they'll never interfere with what I believe and how I feel.
"People are not in good shape to where they have to question their own belief system because of a book or a story somebody wrote, or a SLAYER song."


It also must be noted he has a Christian band with Slayer's drummer, Dave Lombardo.

Slayer's disco, with which they've sold many millions of albums worldwide:

Show No Mercy • Hell Awaits • Reign in Blood • South of Heaven • Seasons in the Abyss • Divine Intervention • Diabolus in Musica • God Hates Us All • Christ Illusion

 

[a runner]

I want to know what'.s the point. What are pharmaci..st..s.. trying to prove by exerci..sing religion in a pharmacy like refu..sing to di..spen..se birth control or plan b? .

I don't know what they're trying to prove, if anything. You're missing the point here. The point is that pharmacists are people too, people with values and beliefs. It is easy for us, who don't share their views, to dismiss their beliefs or say "oh it's ok, just do it, it won't hurt you at all." Well, yeah, it won't... according to us. But some people may actually believe that it damages their soul or puts them at risk of eternal hellfire, so who am I to say that said person MUST do a certain activity in the name of not inconveniencing the patient?

..Even if pharmaci..st..s are going to refu..se:.
.People are ..still going to have pre-marital ..sex. Women can ..still get pregnant after rape. Women will continue getting abortion..s. Pharma will continue manufacturing plan b and birth control. .
.

This is missing the point. I think that the problem to the people who want to refuse BC is not that people are receiving it, but rather that they are involved in it. Obviously, women are free to get these legal things in our country if they so choose, so what is so wrong about allowing them to visit a pharmacy that has no moral qualms about dispensing them, instead of forcing those who do have these moral convictions to do something that they feel will harm themselves if they do it? I agree there may be an inconvenience, however that inconvenience is small in comparison to the perceived damage to the person who believes they are going to suffer in pergatory for dispensing that BC. Hey I think pergatory is total BS, made up to make money from indulgences, but that doesn't mean I have the right to force someone to do something they feel will harm them.

I.s it really worth it to ri..sk profe..s..sional reputation and your licen..se over per..sonal ..religiou..s conviction..s? If ..so, what wa..s the point of going into pharmacy?.

Yes, it is always worth the risk to maintain professional autonomy and hold onto what freedoms we have. You know what happens when we voluntarily give up what liberties we have.

 

[Carboxide]

I agree there may be an inconvenience, however that inconvenience is small in comparison to the perceived damage to the person who believes they are going to suffer in pergatory for dispensing that BC.

Too bad inconvenience is not the only potential harm. As posted before, Plan B is EXTREMELY time dependent - the time spent driving around trying to find a pharmacist WITHOUT his head stuck up his ass to dispense it could make it too late.

 

[slight365]

One of the issues with Plan B is also that pharmacists will pass judgement on those asking for it and give them a hassle and treat them poorly. On top of that, for compliance, the pharmacists will stock Plan B, but out of sight and whenever someone comes in for it, "it's out of stock".

 

[pharm093]

can some one who actually already study this tell me about the mode of action of plan B?

What does it really do?

I think we should make it clear to the OP about this before saying anything more.

 

[slight365]

According to pharmacists that won't sell it, it kills babies.

 

[pharm093]

According to pharmacists that won't sell it, it kills babies.

hehehe, just that I want someone to present a fair evaluation on the mode of action of the drug. Afterwards the OP can decide what he/she wants to do.

 

[Carboxide]

According to pharmacists that won't sell it, it kills babies.

IIRC it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg into the lining of the womb.

 

[a runner]

Too bad inconvenience is not the only potential harm. As posted before, Plan B is EXTREMELY time dependent - the time spent driving around trying to find a pharmacist WITHOUT his head stuck up his ass to dispense it could make it too late.

How long would it take to phone ahead to make sure it is available and in stock at a specific pharmacy? 1 minute?

 

[a runner]

IIRC it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg into the lining of the womb.

Yeah, the same thing birth control often does. I don't understand people who are ok with birth control, but opposed to plan B. Makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Jdario86]

I don't know what they're trying to prove, if anything. You're missing the point here. The point is that pharmacists are people too, people with values and beliefs. It is easy for us, who don't share their views, to dismiss their beliefs or say "oh it's ok, just do it, it won't hurt you at all." Well, yeah, it won't... according to us. But some people may actually believe that it damages their soul or puts them at risk of eternal hellfire, so who am I to say that said person MUST do a certain activity in the name of not inconveniencing the patient?



This is missing the point. I think that the problem to the people who want to refuse BC is not that people are receiving it, but rather that they are involved in it. Obviously, women are free to get these legal things in our country if they so choose, so what is so wrong about allowing them to visit a pharmacy that has no moral qualms about dispensing them, instead of forcing those who do have these moral convictions to do something that they feel will harm themselves if they do it? I agree there may be an inconvenience, however that inconvenience is small in comparison to the perceived damage to the person who believes they are going to suffer in pergatory for dispensing that BC. Hey I think pergatory is total BS, made up to make money from indulgences, but that doesn't mean I have the right to force someone to do something they feel will harm them.



Yes, it is always worth the risk to maintain professional autonomy and hold onto what freedoms we have. You know what happens when we voluntarily give up what liberties we have.

Let's get one thing straight about professional autonomy. In pharmacy, the patient comes first according to the Maimonides oath, not your religious convictions. Pharmacy practice is based on clinical science (tangible evidence) and religion is based on faith (subjective morals). If a pharmacist refuses to dispense plan b (an FDA approved drug) because he/she considers it as killing an innocent based on personal moral beliefs, then he/she is violating the Maimonides oath and not practicing pharmacy.

Hypothetical Examples:
-I refuse to dispense plan b to this patient because I see a potential contraindication with one of her medications (patient comes first).

-I refuse to dispense plan b to this patient because it's a sin (religion comes first).

And another issue with pharmacists exercising religion by refusing to dispense BC is that religion, in general, is really subjective and up to anyone's interpretation. Religion is so subjective, that there can be potential for abuse. What will happen if (hypothetically speaking) ¾ of pharmacists were scientologists and they refuse to dispense anti-depressants because they don't believe in psychopharmacological medicine? These type of treatments are a detriment to the mental health population. As an aspiring clinician, I can't let that happen. I can easily make up my own religion where I can mandate diabetic medicine as immoral and diabetics will be out of luck. Ultimately, I think maintaining professional autonomy to the extent of exercising religion is potentially abusive and borderline selfish. I understand the importance of maintaining professional autonomy but I will not risk a patient's health or autonomy for someone else's subjective moral beliefs.

What you've been suggesting in your recent posts is that it's ok for pharmacists to exercise religion although the majority disagrees (for the sake of maintaining individual liberties). This is a theocracy, NOT democracy. Last time I checked, theocracy has been obsolete since the illegalization of slavery and the establishment of separation btw church and state.

You're right about one thing in regards to making a patient go elsewhere for plan B. If she was hypothetically a victim of rape or incest, you're not really inconveniencing her, you're really adding to her psychological trauma.

 

[Passion4Sci]

I heard Calvin had it right all along.

Poor people are poor because God hates them, rich people are rich because God loves them.

Pregnant, single women are pregnant and single because God hates them, so why SHOULD we give them Plan B?

Sounds like solid medicine to me.

 

[Carboxide]

I don't know what they're trying to prove, if anything. You're missing the point here. The point is that pharmacists are people too, people with values and beliefs. It is easy for us, who don't share their views, to dismiss their beliefs or say "oh it's ok, just do it, it won't hurt you at all." Well, yeah, it won't... according to us. But some people may actually believe that it damages their soul or puts them at risk of eternal hellfire, so who am I to say that said person MUST do a certain activity in the name of not inconveniencing the patient?



This is missing the point. I think that the problem to the people who want to refuse BC is not that people are receiving it, but rather that they are involved in it. Obviously, women are free to get these legal things in our country if they so choose, so what is so wrong about allowing them to visit a pharmacy that has no moral qualms about dispensing them, instead of forcing those who do have these moral convictions to do something that they feel will harm themselves if they do it? I agree there may be an inconvenience, however that inconvenience is small in comparison to the perceived damage to the person who believes they are going to suffer in pergatory for dispensing that BC. Hey I think pergatory is total BS, made up to make money from indulgences, but that doesn't mean I have the right to force someone to do something they feel will harm them.



Yes, it is always worth the risk to maintain professional autonomy and hold onto what freedoms we have. You know what happens when we voluntarily give up what liberties we have.

So here's a question for you:

How do you feel about Jehovah's Witnesses becoming doctors? Would you be all right with a refusal to give you a blood transfusion? Would you consider that a viable expression of religious freedom?