Catholic Pharmacist?

[UES Girl]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

yes the 'insults' (whats with the ' '? they were insults) i said my opinion on the OP's original question which is the point of this forum.....not everyone elses....
anywho what dooo you think?

I'm thinking you should answer my question above, as I'm really wondering what fellow Christians have to say, since I have to write a paper on this topic for my sexuality class, as to how it's not hypocritical to be inhumane when you are religious.

 

[Lotus89]

I'm thinking you should answer my question above, as I'm really wondering what fellow Christians have to say, since I have to write a paper on this topic for my sexuality class, as to how it's not hypocritical to be inhumane when you are religious.

so your attacking me saying i am inhumane? your taking my beliefs and making assumptions w/o even knowing me? what is your problem?
...wow..you need to take a chill pill...

 

[UES Girl]

so your attacking me saying i am inhumane? your taking my beliefs and making assumptions w/o even knowing me? what is your problem?
...wow..you need to take a chill pill...

I'm not attacking you in any way, shape or form. I'm not nearly as hyper as your 20 year old self either.

I simply asked a coherent question that you conveniently ignored numerous times and every time I bring it up, you deviate from the topic and ignore it completely or conveniently stir reply in a different direction.

I would just like to know can someone religious refuse treatment for example to HIV+ patient, like some nurses can for example. Isn't that somewhat inhumane and humanity is one of the fundamentals of the religion ?

I'm Christian myself btw, just so you know.


Sidenote: respond maturely if you can, I don't read pre-pharmacy forum much and usually am used to meaningful discussions without personal attacks.

 

[Jdario86]

The question I don't understand and hope someone can shed some light on:

- Isn't being compassionate and kind to others, one of the fundamentals of religion ? Something along the lines of: "do to others as you want done to yourself" - I'm translating from Russian, so forgive me the little discrepancies.
In light of that, how can someone religious refuse to fill someone's script or attend to a bed-ridden patient, or write a prescription for a patient who is HIV positive ? Isn't that going against humanity and humanity and kindness are the two fundamentals religious people seem to praise ?

Religion doesn't make religion bad. People make religion bad. People use religion as justification to do what they want. For example, if someone sees someone else who is different, they use religion as justification to condemn them (ie. "all homosexuals are going to hell based on the bibles teachings"). sometimes, people use religion for politics (ie. Bush parading his religious beliefs to pander to religious voters). Once, people even used the bible as justification to own slaves. I also think it's easier for people to say I don't believe in homosexuality because the bible says so' than to say 'I'm just homophobic.'' It enables people to throw rational and logic out the window.

Religion can also be used to do good things like volunteering at soup kitchens and helping people in need but that does not give anyone the license to condemn people who are different from them or use religion for political gain.

 

[dreezy10]

The OP is trying to stop all women from buying Plan B and taking birth control pills...if that isn't enforcing his close minded believes on other people then what is? 🙄

If you say stupid s*** like this, you can't be apart of the discussion.

OP just asked where he could be effective in pharmacy without dispensing BC. I don't think that makes him an "enforcer of close minded beliefs."

He could do great things in research, nuclear pharm, ect. Read the post correctly before you reply.

 

[Regnvejr]

What's the big deal? It's just a piece of paper. It's not like the service requested on it is lost forever. Unless its a C-II, tell the physicians' office what happened and have them call it in elsewhere...whoopity do.

Rest assured that if some pharmacist decide that my patient shouldn't have contraception and keep the script that I wrote, then I would be on the phone with that pharmacy right away. And if there is no medical/legal reason for keeping that script, then I would press charges that day.

Yes, pharmacists are the double-check on our prescriptions, and thank God for that. But trying to determine not what is pharmacologically appropriate, but rather what is medically appropriate and especially based on religion rather than science, that will get me testy. If the pharmacist doesn't like my script, then she/he can call me and confirm. My number is right on the script. But trying to prevent what I found as medically appropriate treatment, that's a very dicey position.

 

[CaptainPicard]

Under that same reasoning, we would have satanists exercising their moral beliefs in a pharmacy. That was my point with that satanist comment. If any pharmacist is allowed to exercise any religion in a pharmacy, then **** is bound to happen.

I don't think some of you really know much about Satanists. What you see on TV and those really practicing are two different realities. There are also different types. Many don't literally believe in Satan and instead have the religion has a mockery of religion.

 

[Lotus89]

I'm not attacking you in any way, shape or form. I'm not nearly as hyper as your 20 year old self either.

I simply asked a coherent question that you conveniently ignored numerous times and every time I bring it up, you deviate from the topic and ignore it completely or conveniently stir reply in a different direction.

I would just like to know can someone religious refuse treatment for example to HIV+ patient, like some nurses can for example. Isn't that somewhat inhumane and humanity is one of the fundamentals of the religion ?

I'm Christian myself btw, just so you know.

oh that q's
ok, sorry maybe i read your post wrong or you worded it wrong but i thought you were calling me inhumane because i do believe in something rather than nothing....lol
wow i feel better...
anyway sure i will answer that question, i simply wasnt ignoring your question, i just didnt know what question/situation you were referring to from other people, because there is lot of differnt situations/opinions up there..then i thought you were offending me....but its ok and its all cleared up...
back to your question: i have never heard of anyone refusing HIV treatment to that patient, and i didnt know that nurses can get away with it. so they are religious (what religion? christain, catholic, muslim, islam?) and they refuse HIV treatment to a pt? uggg how sad, if they were christian, i would be disappointed, because from what i personally believe, i think that they should treat it...i mean why not? because the HIV patient was gay? even though i am against gays (i not homophobic, i just don't think its right) i would still treat them because that is what my beliefs have taught me, to be humane and not to judge, its not my job to judge, that is between that person and God. even though i am against abortion, would i still dispense the pill? (or however it is given these days) i wouldn't like to, and i would get someone else to do it, but what it all comes down to, is that if i didnt dispense it and give it to them, then that person would get it from someone else anyway...so what can i honestly do? that is just my opinion.... what would you do?

 

[Regnvejr]

The shopping list is a much bigger deal. It's not replaceable. A phone call replaced the script. The only thing I take is Advair...and if a dude refused to fill and kept my script, I'd just laugh it off and call my physician's office to tell them to call it in elsewhere. That so ridiculous that I hope it happens...

And when next pharmacy is 80 miles away? Not all of us live in urban areas.

 

[Lotus89]

If you say stupid s*** like this, you can't be apart of the discussion.

OP just asked where he could be effective in pharmacy without dispensing BC. I don't think that makes him an "enforcer of close minded beliefs."

He could do great things in research, nuclear pharm, ect. Read the post correctly before you reply.

👍

 

[Jdario86]

If you say stupid s*** like this, you can't be apart of the discussion.

OP just asked where he could be effective in pharmacy without dispensing BC. I don't think that makes him an "enforcer of close minded beliefs."

He could do great things in research, nuclear pharm, ect. Read the post correctly before you reply.

Ok - The OP made a really loaded comment. The OP asked what pharmacy specialty he/she can go into to be able to exercise his/her religious beliefs - implying that it is ok to exercise religion in pharmacy.

It's like asking: I want to become monkey. Can anyone suggest a good geneticist?

 

[a runner]

And no one ever addressed the issue with indication and OC's, I'd like to hear an argument about that one.

I don't think you'll get one either because I doubt anyone here, including myself, actually agrees with the OP about not dispensing birth control. It's just split between those of us who are open minded and realize that not everyone (ie. the OP) has the same beliefs as us, and those who wants others to conform to their beliefs.

 

[Regnvejr]

Well if you're going by the premise that a zygote is fully equivalent to you and me (diploid), then it makes logical sense that preventing implantation is equivalent to locking me out of my apartment when it's 30 below outside and I die of hypothermia.

And the science behind that is like... ZIP.

The issue is where one deems the "start of life" to have begun (which won't be answered in this thread, or ever). Both are steeped in science (diploid, birth), not just faith. So being against Plan B isn't necessarily a "closed minded" belief, there is a certain scientific logic behind it.

What "scientific logic" What part of the Scientific Method has determined the claim. It might be coated in scientific terminology, but it is solidly in the belief amp, not the science.

 

[k00618]

Ok - The OP made a really loaded comment. The OP asked what pharmacy specialty he/she can go into to be able to exercise his/her religious beliefs - implying that it is ok to exercise religion in pharmacy.

It's like asking: I want to become monkey. Can anyone suggest a good geneticist?

But the OP also stated where he would not have any interaction with BC at all, which would most likely imply not having to interfere in patient's rights. I do not think the OP is trying to enforce his or her beliefs onto us or his or her patients. I think the OP just wanted to become involved in the pharmaceutical field within the OP's boundaries.

However, I understand your implication. 👍

I viewed the OP's statement about the same as dweezy. I saw it as the OP interested in the drug interaction aspect of pharmacy; however, the OP would like to know if there was a field without any interaction with birth control.

A lot of people are saying how they do not live in urban towns, but that is the point of this forum: to help the OP find fields within pharmacy that will not have to deal with these situations. The rest of us will take care of it. 🙂

 

[a runner]

And the science behind that is like... ZIP.
What "scientific logic" What part of the Scientific Method has determined the claim. It might be coated in scientific terminology, but it is solidly in the belief amp, not the science.

So you are saying that every healthcare professional is required to instantly become an ontological naturalist and remove any non-naturalistic beliefs from their minds?

Yes, you might say, at work at least. Well I am sorry to inform you that if a person believes in something outside of work, they will still believe it at work. And as long as those beliefs does not harm patients, the person should be allowed to retain their beliefs, else the government gets into the business of enforcing which "morals" are acceptable or not. Once you give the government that power, it can't be taken away once the government decides on new morals that you don't agree with anymore.

 

[Jdario86]

So you are saying that every healthcare professional is required to instantly become an ontological naturalist and remove any non-naturalistic beliefs from their minds?

Yes, you might say, at work at least. Well I am sorry to inform you that if a person believes in something outside of work, they will still believe it at work. And as long as those beliefs does not harm patients, the person should be allowed to retain their beliefs, else the government gets into the business of enforcing which "morals" are acceptable or not. Once you give the government that power, it can't be taken away once the government decides on new morals that you don't agree with anymore.

so is it ok for a satanic pharmacist to make a harmless satanic chant while filling a prescription before they dispense it to a patient?

 

[diastole]

Ok - The OP made a really loaded comment. The OP asked what pharmacy specialty he/she can go into to be able to exercise his/her religious beliefs - implying that it is ok to exercise religion in pharmacy.

It's like asking: I want to become monkey. Can anyone suggest a good geneticist?

I think the OP wants to behave in a way that he/she can live with and not be faced with these moral dilemmas. I don't think it was loaded at all. This person was asking for information.

Back when I wanted to go to grad school, I wanted to do science research but not kill animals. I knew that animals are killed in research and I wasn't trying to prevent that from taking place but I really didn't want to do it myself. I might have come to a forum with grad students and asked if it was possible to be a researcher in my field and not kill animals. If the people on the forums told me that I would have to kill them, then that would have given me information to make a career choice. I don't see how my question is any different that the OP's except that people go a little nuts when you involve religion.

 

[dreezy10]

I think the OP wants to behave in a way that he/she can live with and not be faced with these moral dilemmas. I don't think it was loaded at all. This person was asking for information.

Back when I wanted to go to grad school, I wanted to do science research but not kill animals. I knew that animals are killed in research and I wasn't trying to prevent that from taking place but I really didn't want to do it myself. I might have come to a forum with grad students and asked if it was possible to be a researcher in my field and not kill animals. If the people on the forums told me that I would have to kill them, then that would have given me information to make a career choice. I don't see how my question is any different that the OP's except that people go a little nuts when you involve religion.

👍

great analogy, and well said.

 

[a runner]

I think the OP wants to behave in a way that he/she can live with and not be faced with these moral dilemmas. I don't think it was loaded at all. This person was asking for information.

Back when I wanted to go to grad school, I wanted to do science research but not kill animals. I knew that animals are killed in research and I wasn't trying to prevent that from taking place but I really didn't want to do it myself. I might have come to a forum with grad students and asked if it was possible to be a researcher in my field and not kill animals. If the people on the forums told me that I would have to kill them, then that would have given me information to make a career choice. I don't see how my question is any different that the OP's except that people go a little nuts when you involve religion.

👍

A voice full of wisdom, reason, and logic.

It's annoying how some people are trying to make this about religion, when it's really not about that at all.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

And when next pharmacy is 80 miles away? Not all of us live in urban areas.

Then you have a mom and pop store...and if they are against Plan B, they wouldn't stock it to begin with. Ridiculous argument, IMO. The state I live in is as rural as it gets and there are zero places that don't have at least three pharmacies within a 20 mile radius. Has this hypothetical situation ever happened? Probably not.

Personally, I wouldn't give a **** about a person getting it or not...but making someone do something they aren't comfortable with isn't right to me.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

so is it ok for a satanic pharmacist to make a harmless satanic chant while filling a prescription before they dispense it to a patient?

Hahaha. That'd be awesome. I want my pharmacist to chant crazy crap while slapping the label on my Advair...

 

[ValeRx]

👍

A voice full of wisdom, reason, and logic.

It's annoying how some people are trying to make this about religion, when it's really not about that at all.

That's funny. I have to disagree that this is NOT about religion. The OP stated they had specific RELIGIOUS beliefs and because they had these RELIGIOUS beliefs, they did not want to fill/dispense contraceptive medication. All patients under the care of their physician have the LEGAL RIGHT to their medication. It is not the pharmacists job to pass judgment on them based on their RELIGIOUS beliefs and deny them that right. The OP SPECIFICALLY stated he did not want to dispense these drugs because he is Catholic and does not believe in it. THAT WAS HIS QUESTION. So how is this not about religion again?

 

[Jdario86]

I think the OP wants to behave in a way that he/she can live with and not be faced with these moral dilemmas. I don't think it was loaded at all. This person was asking for information.

Back when I wanted to go to grad school, I wanted to do science research but not kill animals. I knew that animals are killed in research and I wasn't trying to prevent that from taking place but I really didn't want to do it myself. I might have come to a forum with grad students and asked if it was possible to be a researcher in my field and not kill animals. If the people on the forums told me that I would have to kill them, then that would have given me information to make a career choice. I don't see how my question is any different that the OP's except that people go a little nuts when you involve religion.

Well, dispensing birth control in a pharmacy is not suppose to be a moral dilemma.

 

[Regnvejr]

So you are saying that every healthcare professional is required to instantly become an ontological naturalist and remove any non-naturalistic beliefs from their minds?

Nope. Nowhere did I say that. What makes you draw that conclusion?

Yes, you might say, at work at least.

"might"? So you are wildly speculating?

Well I am sorry to inform you that if a person believes in something outside of work, they will still believe it at work. And as long as those beliefs does not harm patients, the person should be allowed to retain their beliefs,

Certainly. And the beliefs will still be there even beyond that. Why are you "sorry" to inform me this? You seem rather delighted being able to imply your fictitious misrepresentation of my views.

else the government gets into the business of enforcing which "morals" are acceptable or not. Once you give the government that power, it can't be taken away once the government decides on new morals that you don't agree with anymore.

Absolutely. I fully agree with you. That doesn't change that if you go into a profession where you already know that some actions likely will go against your beliefs, then it becomes that person's responsibility to arrange their lives so this unique view won't cause harm and hardship onto others.

 

[ValeRx]

If someone thinks they could possibly put themselves at risk of compromising their religious beliefs, then no, you cannot be a fully effective pharmacist unless you stay at a place where you would never encounter this situation... and there really isn't a place where that could happen.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

And the science behind that is like... ZIP. What "scientific logic" What part of the Scientific Method has determined the claim. It might be coated in scientific terminology, but it is solidly in the belief amp, not the science.

Well...I don't believe a human is a human until they are self-aware (that would take pages to explain...)...but to play devil's advocate, there would be no such thing as the definitive point in which such a thing is considered a "human." Sure, science may say the point of implantation, but I honestly do disagree with that. If the goal is to judge the beginning of a new life on the cellular level, and it isn't considered the point of the sperm entering the egg, then drawing that line any point after that is pretty arbitrary, IMO. It wouldn't be a scientific question, IMO, but rather a philosophical one. And at this point, it's splitting hairs. If the pope in all his pointy-hatted wisdom thinks that life begins whenever...it is their belief...and nothing can change that.

 

[Regnvejr]

Then you have a mom and pop store...and if they are against Plan B, they wouldn't stock it to begin with. Ridiculous argument, IMO. The state I live in is as rural as it gets and there are zero places that don't have at least three pharmacies within a 20 mile radius. Has this hypothetical situation ever happened? Probably not.

Baloney. "rural as it gets"? Nothing your side of the Mississippi is rural. Come out to Wyoming and see if you can find ANY pharmacy within 20 miles of Midwest, f.ex. Any other ignorant stuff you want to push?

Personally, I wouldn't give a **** about a person getting it or not...but making someone do something they aren't comfortable with isn't right to me.

So it is really good idea for those persons to not put themselves into situations where they risk imposing their beliefs onto others, including the risk of those others suing the hell out of the person.

 

[a runner]

Nope. Nowhere did I say that. What makes you draw that conclusion?
"might"? So you are wildly speculating?
Certainly. And the beliefs will still be there even beyond that. Why are you "sorry" to inform me this? You seem rather delighted being able to imply your fictitious misrepresentation of my views.
Absolutely. I fully agree with you. That doesn't change that if you go into a profession where you already know that some actions likely will go against your beliefs, then it becomes that person's responsibility to arrange their lives so this unique view won't cause harm and hardship onto others.

it is solidly in the belief amp, not the science

You said in your previous post that these people's views are not based in naturalistic scientific methods and implied that they are therefore not valid for the workplace, thus my response.

Read WVUPharm2007's posts for further understanding. He explained things well.

 

[Jdario86]

Hahaha. That'd be awesome. I want my pharmacist to chant crazy crap while slapping the label on my Advair...

Hah hah - I was just playing devil's advocate with my satanic comments (no pun intended).

satanic pharmacist: *chanting* please satan, please bless this birth control.

Patient: Is my prescription ready yet!?

satanic pharmacist: Yes ms. smith. Here's your prescription, have a nice day!

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Baloney. "rural as it gets"? Nothing your side of the Mississippi is rural. Come out to Wyoming and see if you can find ANY pharmacy within 20 miles of Midwest, f.ex. Any other ignorant stuff you want to push?

Wow, nice insults. Do you honestly think your "argumentative" style will really convince people to take your side in an argument?

Anyway...look, like I said, if the pharmacist in charge doesn't want to stock Plan B, he isn't going to...and the "choice" thing would be a moot point, anyway. And what if that pharmacist wasn't a pharmacist and didn't pursue pharmacy as you suggest? Then there wouldn't be a pharmacist there, anyway. Hence, it's a ridiculous argument, IMO.

So it is really good idea for those persons to not put themselves into situations where they risk imposing their beliefs onto others, including the risk of those others suing the hell out of the person.

Yeah, it probably is. But we've established that they could probably be fine practicing in a population center that lies outside of the realm of "desolate" or they could pursue another facet of pharmacy where there is no dispensing. So, assuming they find the right place to practice, I see no problem with them practicing how they see fit.

I mean, god help us all we actually try to help the person who posted requesting help. Who needs solutions and answers when we can argue in circles and pretentiously pander around like we are the most intelligent persons on the planet. 🙄

 

[Regnvejr]

Well...I don't believe a human is a human until they are self-aware (that would take pages to explain...)...but to play devil's advocate, there would be no such thing as the definitive point in which such a thing is considered a "human."

The species designation is never in doubt from even before conception.

If you are alluding to personhood, then the legal definitions become relevant, and that means "a human" begins at birth. I'm not sure why you didn't think this had already been worked out?

Sure, science may say the point of implantation,

No, that's when the woman is pregnant. That even is tied to the woman, rather than the embryo.

but I honestly do disagree with that. If the goal is to judge the beginning of a new life on the cellular level, and it isn't considered the point of the sperm entering the egg, then drawing that line any point after that is pretty arbitrary, IMO.

So you are saying that conception is the start of a human? Then a hydatidiform mole will also be a human. You are a bit to absolutist in your designations.

It wouldn't be a scientific question, IMO, but rather a philosophical one. And at this point, it's splitting hairs. If the pope in all his pointy-hatted wisdom thinks that life begins whenever...it is their belief...and nothing can change that.

Quite. And it has absolutely no relevance on the practice of scientific pharmacy and medicine.

 

[Regnvejr]

it is solidly in the belief amp, not the science

You said in your previous post that these people's views are not based in naturalistic scientific methods and implied that they are therefore not valid for the workplace, thus my response.

They are valid, you just can't impose them on clients.

 

[Regnvejr]

Wow, nice insults.

Pot-kettle-black.

Anyway...look, like I said, if the pharmacist in charge doesn't want to stock Plan B, he isn't going to...and the "choice" thing would be a moot point, anyway.

Quite.

And what if that pharmacist wasn't a pharmacist and didn't pursue pharmacy as you suggest? Then there wouldn't be a pharmacist there, anyway.

And there would then be another one instead.

Hence, it's a ridiculous argument, IMO.

Yours about the finite supply of pharmacists certainly is. Somebody else would take the place.

Yeah, it probably is. But we've established that they could probably be fine practicing in a population center that lies outside of the realm of "desolate"

Ah, like not in the dryland West.

or they could pursue another facet of pharmacy where there is no dispensing. So, assuming they find the right place to practice, I see no problem with them practicing how they see fit.

Absolutely.

I mean, god help us all we actually try to help the person who posted requesting help.

Fortunately, several good examples have already been provided.

 

[diastole]

Well, dispensing birth control in a pharmacy is not suppose to be a moral dilemma.

I'm sure some people would say the same thing about doing research that will save human lives. It all depends on your perspective. Remember the OP never said that he/she would deny people BC/Plan B. This person was asking for information to make a career choice.

 

[FarscapeGirl]

This seems to have turned into more of an argument about whether someone should pursue pharmacy if they have moral issues dispensing certain meds rather than if the OP can pursue pharmacy without dispensing BC.

My question that I posted earlier still stands: how can a pharmacist justify not dispensing birth control when there are many other reasons a woman may be taking it? When in fact, she may be taking it to help start a life?

I can see the moral argument against dispensing Plan B, which is really only used to prevent pregnancy. I don't agree with the argument (especially since preventing a pregnancy from starting could prevent an abortion down the road), but I can see it. I can't see the argument against dispensing birth control, and I certainly don't see how someone doesn't want to dispense birth control but is perfectly fine dispensing erectile dysfunction drugs.

 

[SHC1984]

If you say stupid s*** like this, you can't be apart of the discussion.

OP just asked where he could be effective in pharmacy without dispensing BC. I don't think that makes him an "enforcer of close minded beliefs."

He could do great things in research, nuclear pharm, ect. Read the post correctly before you reply.

You won't think this reply is stupid if you were in the patient's shoes. I tried buying a Plan B pill a few years ago and was denied b/c I live in the South where most people are very CLOSE MINDED. (we can't even buy or sell wine or beer on a Sunday either...🙄) anyways I ended up driving 30 minutes out of my way to another pharmacy to buy this pill. What a waste of my time and gas!!! What is this suppose to do? teach me a "lesson" at the end of the day I still did what I did..what did that pharmacist get from this besides wasting my time and increasing my chances of getting pregnant??

And to everyone on here that thinks that the OP's action won't affect other people they are crazy. What if someone got pregnant b/c some pharmacist didn't want to sell a Plan B? they will just end up getting an abortion which is worst. 🙄

 

[Jdario86]

I'm sure some people would say the same thing about doing research that will save human lives. It all depends on your perspective. Remember the OP never said that he/she would deny people BC/Plan B. This person was asking for information to make a career choice.

Disagreeing with the use of animals in research is based on animal rights issues (debatable issues). Disagreeing to dispense planB/birth control because the bible says so is based on someone's beliefs who also believes in talking snakes (schizophrenic issues).

Any religion-related subject matter is a loaded gun in a scientific forum. Don't tell me that the OP intended to bring up a touchy/loaded gun issue in a scientific forum only to get career advice without getting any critical feedback from scientific professionals.

 

[HyZaAr21]

You can't just tell a patient that you can't fill their medication due to your religious beliefs. You have an obligation to treat ALL patients regardless of your beliefs s it is your duty as a pharmacist to do so (Unless they are drug addicts). Not wanting to dispense Plan B is like me being a doctor and saying that I don;t want to treat black people because they commit a lot of crimes. I understand your dilemma but don't bother applying to a retail pharmacy as you will be fired after a week if you refuse to dispense contraceptives and the like. Plus, BC pills are big money for any pharmacy. If you are going to refuse to dispense certain medication due to your religious beliefs then you are not properly doing your job to sublimate your own personal interests for those of the patient's. I would go for nuclear pharmacy or compounding if I were you. And if you don;t like those then I wouldn't bother being a medical professional as your personal beliefs prevent you from being a professional in most settings.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

And there would then be another one instead.
....
Somebody else would take the place.

How can you say this? If its as desolate as you claim...and that one person didn't pursue pharmacy...and some other guy did...whose to say that someone else would chose to open up in that area? It's not like the gov't tells people where to set up shop or that there are predetermined "slots" where people practice.

Plan B is OTC, anyway. Just have an adult ask if they have Plan B. If yes...great...if no, then go somewhere else. Nobody's gonna pay for an office visit and a copay when you can waltz in and get some, anyway. Hell, this problem for the most part has been solved, anyway. It's just mental masturbation at this point. The only potential problem is the dude that refuses to stock it. I once theorized that the solution was to get a giant ass vending machine of Plan B, put it on the sidewalk in front of the post office, and just let it be. That'd solve all of our problems...

 

[kismet]

That's funny. I have to disagree that this is NOT about religion. The OP stated they had specific RELIGIOUS beliefs and because they had these RELIGIOUS beliefs, they did not want to fill/dispense contraceptive medication. All patients under the care of their physician have the LEGAL RIGHT to their medication. It is not the pharmacists job to pass judgment on them based on their RELIGIOUS beliefs and deny them that right. The OP SPECIFICALLY stated he did not want to dispense these drugs because he is Catholic and does not believe in it. THAT WAS HIS QUESTION. So how is this not about religion again?

The OP didn't say "I want to make sure that women can't get birth control, I'm gonna save the world, what do y'all think?" He is specifically asking how he can avoid dispensing birth control which I think is far more mature than marching into a retail pharmacy and screaming at some 16 year old girl how she's skanky and needs to go pray for her soul. He's not passing judgment on anybody, he's attempting to avoid the situation altogether.

Really he just as easily could have come and said "I hate retail, what else can I do?"

I am not a lawyer, but. I'm pretty sure "medical care" or "access to medication" is not a legal right (with the exception of emergency care). Insurance companies deny claims every day. If you want care, you have to pay, and when money is required, it's called a "privilege".

Let's flip this around a little. When a girl with no money and no insurance presents a script for Plan B, what are you gonna do? (No, I don't want to entertain how she obtained the script with no money in the first place.) Plan B is time sensitive, but she can't pay for it. You might refer her to Planned Parenthood where they have resources to help her even though she can't pay, but that's going to hold up her obtaining the medication. You say she's got the right to this medication, but corporate is sure gonna kill you if you just hand over a drug for free. (This is one of those things we call a moral dilemma.)

so is it ok for a satanic pharmacist to make a harmless satanic chant while filling a prescription before they dispense it to a patient?

I'm pretty sure, according to the government, yes. You have the freedom to practice any religion you wish as long as you don't impose on anyone else's rights. And what harm is it if he chants?

 

[Jdario86]

The OP didn't say "I want to make sure that women can't get birth control, I'm gonna save the world, what do y'all think?" He is specifically asking how he can avoid dispensing birth control which I think is far more mature than marching into a retail pharmacy and screaming at some 16 year old girl how she's skanky and needs to go pray for her soul. He's not passing judgment on anybody, he's attempting to avoid the situation altogether.

Really he just as easily could have come and said "I hate retail, what else can I do?"

I am not a lawyer, but. I'm pretty sure "medical care" or "access to medication" is not a legal right (with the exception of emergency care). Insurance companies deny claims every day. If you want care, you have to pay, and when money is required, it's called a "privilege".

Let's flip this around a little. When a girl with no money and no insurance presents a script for Plan B, what are you gonna do? (No, I don't want to entertain how she obtained the script with no money in the first place.) Plan B is time sensitive, but she can't pay for it. You might refer her to Planned Parenthood where they have resources to help her even though she can't pay, but that's going to hold up her obtaining the medication. You say she's got the right to this medication, but corporate is sure gonna kill you if you just hand over a drug for free. (This is one of those things we call a moral dilemma.)/quote]


HAHAHAHAHAH.

Okay - You're either 1. A virgin male -or- 2. never worked in a pharmacy before.

No one needs a script for plan B, you just need to be 18 with a a valid government issued ID. People usually pay for plan B without insurance.

And no one on this thread is trying to argue that access to healthcare is a privilege or right. People are trying to say that patients' legal right to meds overrides a clinician's religious beliefs.

I'm pretty sure, according to the government, yes. You have the freedom to practice any religion you wish as long as you don't impose on anyone else's rights. And what harm is it if he chants?

Exactly, so a pharmacist refusing to dispense BC based on religion is imposing on someone else's rights. Which the OP intends to do when he/she do their clinical rotations.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Exactly, so a pharmacist refusing to dispense BC based on religion is imposing on someone else's rights. Which the OP intends to do when he/she do their clinical rotations.

Really, there isn't a solution in which a person doesn't have their rights challenged. The pharmacist is having the ethics of the scientific community imposed upon their ethics. Because, again, this is really an ethical question wrapped around the philosophical conundrum of exactly when "life" begins. And, to me, anyway, the conclusion the scientific community is just as arbitrary as the one the Catholics have arrived at. I really can't distinguish one as superior as the other. But, yeah, either the pharmacist has what they perceive as their right to refuse to do something taken away...or the patient has their right to what they perceive as proper care taken away.

But, gee, I love the FDA for making this **** OTC...

 

[HerroooKitty]

This thread needs to end. 🙁
I would not be surprised if it remains another few months.
I haven't seen a single compromise from opposing sides (such as a "very good point"), but rather everyone trying to influence one another with their ideas and perspectives. It's a big circle.

I think the OP already got his or her answer.

 

[kismet]

HAHAHAHAHAH.

Okay - You're either 1. A virgin male -or- 2. never worked in a pharmacy before.

No one needs a script for plan B, you just need to be 18 with a a valid government issued ID. People usually pay for plan B without insurance.

And no one on this thread is trying to argue that access to healthcare is a privilege or right. People are trying to say that patients' legal right to meds overrides a clinician's religious beliefs.

I am neither a virgin male nor have never worked in a pharmacy, but I have been out of retail for a few years. Last time I was in retail, a script was required (whether written by a physician or a pharmacist), so, apologies for having the details wrong. Regardless, the idea still stands. The patient needs Plan B but has no money to pay for it. Now what?

If access to medication is not a right, then how does a patient's legal right to medication come into play?

Exactly, so a pharmacist refusing to dispense BC based on religion is imposing on someone else's rights. Which the OP intends to do when he/she do their clinical rotations.

It is NOT imposing on someone else's rights if you hand the script off to someone else to fill. Honestly I think we're all on the same page here - we want patients to get the drugs they need. I want it, you want it, even the OP wants it. But he knows there are things he personally can't do so he wants to know if he can remove himself from the situation. This thread is long and I think I've kept up but I haven't seen the OP say he is going to do one thing or another on his rotations. It's a personal decision he'd have to make - do the ends (getting a PharmD) justify the means (dispensing BC against your conscience) or not? And there is no right or wrong answer, it's a personal decision. I think it's probably a non-issue because on your rotations you have a supervisor, so if the OP couldn't fill the script he could pass it off with no delay to the patient and the patient still gets the drug. No harm. In fact, in this scenario, the patient wouldn't even know the pharmacist didn't agree with the script. No harm.

For the record, as a Christian, and I still want everyone to have access to meds. As a woman, I already went through a damn gyno exam to get a script for BC even if I just want it to regulate my cycle and I sure as hell don't want to fight with a pharmacist who thinks it's not right. I wish this wasn't considered a "religion" argument and rather a "stupid people" argument. There are plenty of religious people doing their jobs and I'm sure there are those who don't fill scripts they object to but you just never hear about it because they hand it off and it's taken care of. Absolutely I agree that if you're going to practice in a rural area and you're the only guy around for 50 miles then you need to serve your patients and fill everything. So I'd suggest the OP or anyone in his situation either find another city to live/work in or find another career. But is it impossible for him to practice pharmacy with his beliefs? No.

There's a right and wrong way to carry yourself and your beliefs, and these are probably personal opinions as well, but I'd say "right" = with grace, making sure you are in a job where you won't be alone and will have someone to back you up and being quiet about it, or working in a different area than retail; "wrong" = lecturing, working by yourself and not being able to offer patients another option, being a general jackass. I'd be willing to bet there are both kinds of people practicing in the world but all you ever hear about are the people who do it the "wrong" way. The OP is young and seems to be aware that the issue exists and is trying to do things the right way.

 

[SHC1984]

Really, there isn't a solution in which a person doesn't have their rights challenged. The pharmacist is having the ethics of the scientific community imposed upon their ethics. Because, again, this is really an ethical question wrapped around the philosophical conundrum of exactly when "life" begins. And, to me, anyway, the conclusion the scientific community is just as arbitrary as the one the Catholics have arrived at. I really can't distinguish one as superior as the other. But, yeah, either the pharmacist has what they perceive as their right to refuse to do something taken away...or the patient has their right to what they perceive as proper care taken away.

But, gee, I love the FDA for making this **** OTC...

I don't think so. Science always makes sense and have LOGICS to back up every everything. (THEORY) Hints why I am atheist as I am logicial and not delusional.
Religion makes no sense b/c its all crap with no prove. In fact according to religion the earth is flat. 🙄 I can name ALOT more examples but I know a lot of bible thumpers are going to flame me so I will just stick with that one. 😉

 

[a runner]

I don't think so. Science always makes sense and have LOGICS to back up every everything. (THEORY) Hints why I am atheist as I am logicial and not delusional.
Religion makes no sense b/c its all crap with no prove. In fact according to religion the earth is flat. 🙄 I can name ALOT more examples but I know a lot of bible thumpers are going to flame me so I will just stick with that one. 😉

This is what I was talking about when I said that people just want to make this all about the validity of religion. This thread is not entitled "religion is stupid because...." or "let's debate the grounds for/against religion." It is about whether a person can be a pharmacist and avoid situations that make them uncomfortable and whether a pharmacist has the right to refuse to take part in something that makes them feel uncomfortable, regardless of whether that discomfort arises from religious beliefs or not. I understand that a few of you apparently have a personal bone to pick with religion, but going off on a tangent about the stupidity of religious beliefs and calling all religious people delusional is not going to help your cause.

 

[confettiflyer]

I didn't know people were still actively using the "religious people think the world is flat! neener neener!" argument

 

[Kruton]

I didn't know people were still actively using the "religious people think the world is flat! neener neener!" argument

Pffft. Want a real challenge? Since when do Koalas wear glasses and drink coffee? That is right, your avatar is, in fact, A FAKE!

But really I think my views are about the same as WVU's. Neither one really seems superior to the other.

 

[madbeemer1]

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

http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

http://faithfulwordbaptist.org/Birth_Control.html

"Birth Control" Pills cause early Abortions​

By J.T. Finn (updated April 23, 2005)​

Physicians across America -- and around the world -- are now confirming that the Pill, IUDs, Depo-Provera and Norplant cause early abortions.
First, a look at the Pill. Research shows that in many cases the Pill causes early abortions -- abortions the mother may not even know she's having. You may find this shocking, but the facts are clear after reading Randy Alcorn's book, titled;
"Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?"
Here's what 11 physicians and medical professionals are saying about the book Randy Alcorn published in 1998:
1. "From medical textbooks and pharmacy references, to statements from the Pill-manufacturers themselves, this book proves, beyond any doubt, the abortion-causing action of birth control pills. This book should be read by everyone interested in knowing the truth."
~ Paul L. Hayes, M.D., Board Certified Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians/Gynecologists
2. "Does the birth control pill cause abortions? Using research results from medical literature, Randy Alcorn has convincingly shown that the answer is `yes.' He has, with care and compassion, given us the truth. The question for us as Christians is how we will respond now that we know."
~ Linda Martin, M.D., Pediatrician
3. "By carefully detailing the available medical information concerning the abortifacient effects of oral contraceptives, Randy Alcorn has developed a logical and thoughtful challenge to every prolife person. The conclusions of this study are scientifically accurate. Birth control pills usually prevent pregnancy, but sometimes they cause an abortion. Questions? Objections? Randy has addressed them in a gentle but firm way. This is the manner in which the often fiery debate over prolife subjects should be carried out- unemotionally, intelligently and quietly. The evidence is before us . . . `How should we then live?'"
~ Patrick D. Walker, M.D., Professor of Pathology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
4. "In this challenging book Randy Alcorn has the honesty to face a tough and uncomfortable question. This compelling evidence will make you rethink the question of birth control pills."
~ John Brose, M.D., Surgeon
5. "In this impeccably researched book, Randy Alcorn takes an unblinking look at what medical experts know about how birth control pills work. I painfully agree that birth control pills do in fact cause abortions. Our individual and collective Christian response to this heretofore varnished-over information will have profound consequences for time and eternity. This is a disturbing must-read for all who profess to be prolife."
~ Beverly A. McMillan, M.D., Ob/Gyn
6. "Randy Alcorn has done exceptional work. The facts in this book parallel much of my own research. I am delighted he would undertake such a work when others seek to avoid the subject. This book is a must for Christians, particularly those in medicine and Christian ministries."
~ Karen D. Garnett, R.N.
7. "No prolife physician can rightly prescribe BCPs [birth control pills] after reviewing this data. I have started circulating this information."
~ Randall Martin, M.D., Chairman, Department of Anesthesiology, Columbia Willamette Valley Medical Center
8. "Scientific papers suggest that escape ovulation occurs 4-15% of all cycles in patients taking birth control pills. Thus, as this booklet points out, early chemical abortions are a real and significant concern."
~ Paddy Jim Baggot, M.D., Ob/Gyn, Fellow of the American College of Medical Genetics
9. "Randy Alcorn has thoroughly studied and written on an area where little published scientific information exists. His responses to this issue, and his outstanding appendices, are must reading."

~ William M. Petty, M.D., Surgeon, Gynecologic Oncology
10. "Randy Alcorn has once again demonstrated his tenacity and integrity in pursuing the truth. He has exposed the abortifacient properties of so-called birth control agents. This booklet should be required reading for all discerning Christians who wish to fully live out their faith."

~ William L. Toffler, M.D., Professor of Family Medicine,
Oregon Health Sciences University
11. "I endorse Randy Alcorn's book with gusto. He has answered the title question with the care and compassion of a pastor, having searched out the facts with the diligence of an experienced researcher. He has provided all women in their reproductive years with an invaluable resource which will allow them to be fully informed about the birth control pill."
~ William F. Colliton, Jr., M.D., Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
George Washington University Medical Center


You may go to Randy Alcorn's web site and read a summary of this 88-page book by clicking here. You may also order the inexpensive book from his site.

More facts about the Pill, IUDs, Depo-Provera and Norplant: ​

Again, if you're reading about CHEMICAL ABORTIONS for the first time, this may surprise, or even shock you. Most Americans are not aware that the Pill and other chemical "contraceptives" cause millions of "non-surgical" abortions each year in the early weeks of pregnancy. If you are using the Pill, Depo-Provera or Norplant, you need to know the truth about how these products work.
Most women take these "contraceptives" because they don't want to have a baby. But how many women know they can have BREAKTHROUGH OVULATIONS and become pregnant while using these "contraceptives?" Very few! And how many of these women know that if they become pregnant after a BREAKTHROUGH OVULATION, these "contraceptives" will almost always kill any son or daughter they've conceived?
Most people don't know the real facts about how "contraceptives" work. And because of this lack of knowledge, most women are not aware that they may be having BREAKTHROUGH OVULATIONS, and conceiving children that are killed very early in the pregnancy. Women using these "contraceptives" almost never perceive that they have become pregnant, or that chemicals have killed their tiny baby.

[............... go to site for more]

Both articles discuss when life begins and what is the problem with birth control

 

[BenUstudent]

From a Legal standpoint, In Illinois it is law that a Pharmacist must dispence any Rx Regardless of their moral views. I don't know if that also applys to any other state

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.