Jehova's Witness

[ZpackSux]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

We have a patient in the hospital with severe anemia/neutropenia.

The patient is a Jehova's witness.

...needs a tranfustion or 2 really bad.

...refusing it.

...been here for a month.

... on 600mcg Neupogen Qday & 20,000u Epogen Qday.

Eating my cost alive.

We do not get reimbursed for this...since it's a DRG payment per admission.

The phyisician will not discharge the patient due to her condition.

This patient alone broke my drug budget last month.

Discuss.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Tough case. Not taking blood transfusions is a very big thing to Witnesses...

 

[Sosumi]

Ouch. That really sucks.

At my hospital a few months ago, the physician admitted a patient for a knee replacement surgery, not letting the pharmacy know that the patient was a hemophiliac and making us think it was just a routine case. It ended up costing us $1 million dollars to treat the patient! 😱 Thankfully insurance agreed to pay for half of it...

As for your Jehovah's witness, are there any other way to get funds for this patient? If not, I'd say let her pray hard enough and let Jehovah decide if she dies since she doesn't have enough faith in blood transfusion products. It's like brand versus generic drugs. If you want the brand, then you better be willing to shell out the money for it.

 

[Requiem]

"As for your Jehovah's witness, are there any other way to get funds for this patient? If not, I'd say let her pray hard enough and let Jehovah decide if she dies since she doesn't have enough faith in blood transfusion products. It's like brand versus generic drugs. If you want the brand, then you better be willing to shell out the money for it."


Wow, sorry to actually insult a forum member, but you're unbeliveable. That analogy is absolutely terrible, it is completely irrelevant to the issue of blood transfusions - it has nothing to do with money (brand name vs generic, what the hell?) whatsoever, dear god.

It amazes me how someone who's actually in a professional school dedicated to health care just actually said 'let her pray hard enough and let god decide if she dies or not', wow. I think you should actually be banned for that very offensive comment.

Do some research on why they refuse transfusions, no it's not because of a lack of faith in them. It's a religious reason. No, i'm not a Jehovah's Witness but I still find your ignorance offensive. I hope you'll never have to care for me.

 

[no-see-um]

"As for your Jehovah's witness, are there any other way to get funds for this patient? If not, I'd say let her pray hard enough and let Jehovah decide if she dies since she doesn't have enough faith in blood transfusion products. It's like brand versus generic drugs. If you want the brand, then you better be willing to shell out the money for it."


Wow, sorry to actually insult a forum member, but you're unbeliveable. That analogy is absolutely terrible, it is completely irrelevant to the issue of blood transfusions - it has nothing to do with money (brand name vs generic, what the hell?) whatsoever, dear god.

It amazes me how someone who's actually in a professional school dedicated to health care just actually said 'let her pray hard enough and let god decide if she dies or not', wow. I think you should actually be banned for that very offensive comment.

Do some research on why they refuse transfusions, no it's not because of a lack of faith in them. It's a religious reason. No, i'm not a Jehovah's Witness but I still find your ignorance offensive. I hope you'll never have to care for me.

A little harsh, but you have two valid points in there. 1) the economics issue appears grossly mischaracterized AND 2) It's a religious reason and we ought to be accepting of others who may have different beliefs than us, as it relates to their health care.

It's a tough situation. I personally believe that there ought to be Jehovah's Witness charities that should be there to pay some of the bill. They ought to understand, as well, that others in the hospital may suffer when so much money goes into this type of therapy.

 

[rougemarie]

I actually witnessed soemthing similar in the ER, the patient passed away because the family refused blood transfusion due to their religion. As a volunteer, I was the one who had to keep the family member calm down in the waiting room & try to keep them happy and not wanting to go in while the nurses/dr did their job. Imagine their anguish!!! Pls. think about the other side of the story too. I think, it is something you have to experience to understand, just like childbirth and raising kids. Imagine that person is your own family member and your fundamental belief in life is tested in every way possible.

As a health care provider, my obligation is to the patient, imho. I do not have to agree in their beliefs, I just have to serve them because that's what I am here to do. Wouldn't you want someone who'd bend over backwards to meet your needs when your loved ones are the ones suffering?

 

[no-see-um]

I actually witnessed soemthing similar in the ER, the patient passed away because the family refused blood transfusion due to their religion. As a volunteer, I was the one who had to keep the family member calm down in the waiting room & try to keep them happy and not wanting to go in while the nurses/dr did their job. Imagine their anguish!!! Pls. think about the other side of the story too. It's I think something you have to experienced to understand, just like childbirth and raising kids. Imagine that person is your own family member and your fundamental belief in life is tested in every way possible.

As a health care provider, my obligation is to the patient, imho. I do not have to agree to their beliefs, I just have to serve them because that's what I am here to do. Wouldn't you want someone who'd bend over backwards to meet your needs when your loved ones are the ones suffering?

I agree. If you're the health care provider in the situation, you ought to be looking out in the best interest of the patient- which entails respecting the patient's wishes.

If you wish to be a policy-maker, then go into that. But I do not see violating the patient's wishes to be a viable option.

 

[museabuse]

The phyisician will not discharge the patient due to her condition.

This patient alone broke my drug budget last month.

Discuss.

What's more important your bonus or a patients life?
The Dr. is just doing their job and your doing yours. There is nothing else you really can do about it?

As for the issue of getting a blood transfusion...
Here is a quote from a book we had to read for a service learning do gooder class. The book is called "The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down."

"What if you have a family who rejects surgery because they
believe an illness has spiritual cause? What if they see a definite
possibility of external damnation for their child if she dies from the
surgery? Next to that, death might not seem so important. Which is more
important, the life or the soul?"

I really didn't like the book or what the book was about... but this quote really made me think about the issue. For me a blood transfusion is no big thing... but for other people they may look at it as loosing part of their soul or whatever Jehova Witnesses believe. The blood transfusion may be worse than dying.

 

[ZpackSux]

What's more important your bonus or a patients life?

Patient's life. That's why she needs a transfusion. She's now placed in Hospice waiting to die. Transfusion could help her. What's ur point.

My bonus isn't based on my department meeting budget.

 

[museabuse]

Patient's life. That's why she needs a transfusion. She's now placed in Hospice waiting to die. Transfusion could help her. What's ur point.

My bonus isn't based on my department meeting budget.

Ok then... never mind the bonus comment.
Still read the quote...
Maybe in her eyes getting a blood transfusion is worse than the alternative, death.
I don't believe that... you don't believe that... but she believes that.

 

[ZpackSux]

Maybe in her eyes getting a blood transfusion is worse then the alternative, death.
I don't believe that... you don't believe that... but she believes that.

??

We are not over-ruling her wishes. She is getting what she wants. Death.

Granted, she's an elderly.

But if it was a 16 year old child which her parents refuses transfusion which could save her life, I would definitely seek a court ruling... or beat up the parents.. maybe both.

Her wish is being met. She's going to die. But she'll die happy.. ? Or she could live miserably knowing she got a transfusion.

Oh..I don't know.

 

[ZpackSux]

As a health care provider, my obligation is to the patient, imho. I do not have to agree in their beliefs, I just have to serve them because that's what I am here to do. Wouldn't you want someone who'd bend over backwards to meet your needs when your loved ones are the ones suffering?

Bend over backwards to serve patients sounds noble.. but consider the follwoing.

1. Patient with alcoholic withdrawal in DT..wants to drink...bend over and give them whisky.

2. Patient with severe COPD and can't breathe.. but we're going to bend over and let them smoke as much as they want.

3. Patient seeking narcotic comes checks into the hospital claiming chronic pain. We're going to bend over and give as much narc..

We try to do what's best for the patient. Not what they wish because of their beliefs. The line has to be drawn.

 

[museabuse]

But if it was a 16 year old child which her parents refuses transfusion which could save her life, I would definitely seek a court ruling... or beat up the parents.. maybe both.

Her wish is being met. She's going to die. But she'll die happy.. ? Or she could live miserably knowing she got a transfusion.

Oh..I don't know.

Yes it is complicated and I agree with you on the child. If the person is over 18 though they are old enough to decide what they believe religously and therefore has the right to choose not to have blood transfusions.

 

[rougemarie]

Bend over backwards to meet patients sounds noble.. but consider the follwoing.

1. Patient with alcoholic withdrawal in DT..wants to drink...bend over and give them whisky.

2. Patient with severe COPD and can't breathe.. but we're going to bend over and let them smoke as much as they want.

3. Patient seeking narcotic comes checks into the hospital claiming chronic pain. We're going to bend over and give as much narc..

We try to do what's best for the patient. Not what they wish because of their beliefs. The line has to be drawn.

I am only volunteering for about 2-3 years, and yet, I can spot such patients from a mile away, those who are shopping from ER to ER for codeine and all of those good stuff. Or how about someone who's obese, with high blood pressure, diabetic, and yet still smoking? yep, we've got them too. All the time 😀

Still my point stands: we meet the patients where they are & respect them where they are. It's not about anything noble. It's about choice: if one wants to address patient's attitude, beliefs, etc. then perhaps counseling, spiritual direction, etc. would be the best avenue to do so. If they come wanting more narcs, granted, the nurses are going to give it to them. If patients w/ COPD want to smoke, I'd be happy to show them our smoking area. We do it all the time.

Yes, line has to be drawn, but in reality it is a very thin line indeed.

 

[Requiem]

Bend over backwards to serve patients sounds noble.. but consider the follwoing.

1. Patient with alcoholic withdrawal in DT..wants to drink...bend over and give them whisky.

2. Patient with severe COPD and can't breathe.. but we're going to bend over and let them smoke as much as they want.

3. Patient seeking narcotic comes checks into the hospital claiming chronic pain. We're going to bend over and give as much narc..

We try to do what's best for the patient. Not what they wish because of their beliefs. The line has to be drawn.

Are you trolling or what?

Do you seriously not see a "line" between an alcoholic requesting alcohol versus an elderly woman who in her RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF BELIEFS chooses not to receive a certain treatment? Seriously, she is also not ' choosing death', she's choosing not receive a certain treatment. Maybe you could research some alternative treatments instead of spending all this time belitting a woman's decision to, in your words 'kill herself'.

Your job is to provide treatment to the sick, to care for people who need help. If you're so focused on the money healthcare costs, or a person's religion, go become an activist.

In terms of a minor under 18, I agree completely. However, I certainly believe it's an elderly woman's right to choose what she wants. It's also hardly your position to judge what she does.

 

[rougemarie]

But if it was a 16 year old child which her parents refuses transfusion which could save her life, I would definitely seek a court ruling... or beat up the parents.. maybe both.

Are you a parent by any chance? I still remember the first time my son got hurt and boy.. did I want to give anything at all to take away his pain! If I were the care provider, I would not point my finger as quickly as to give them the benefit of the doubt. Seeing a child in pain is a lot of anguish for parents, as many can attest. Imagine compounding that with your personal belief is tested to the core, the belief that you held for so long, perhaps for generations. I can only imagine...

 

[elmoz]

I have a bit of a off topic question, but still relevant. How far does HIPAA go in restricting comments you can make on a patient's situation? I've always thought that as long as you aren't mentioning the person's name or other key information (where they're being treated, some rare diagnosis that might reveal their identity, etc) then it's ok to say an anecdote about some situation with a patient. But maybe I am wrong?

 

[rougemarie]

I have a bit of a off topic question, but still relevant. How far does HIPAA go in restricting comments you can make on a patient's situation? I've always thought that as long as you aren't mentioning the person's name or other key information (where they're being treated, some rare diagnosis that might reveal their identity, etc) then it's ok to say an anecdote about some situation with a patient. But maybe I am wrong?

Very good point. This is what I'm trained to do: I am not allowed to know more info of a patient than what is enough to deliver care. We are not allowed to discuss a patient's condition unless needed to deliver care. Patient's personal information is also off limit. However, we banter stories like these all the times, so I think this is within limit, besides those stories which I shared can be a hypothetical situation or reworded as such. If someone else find otherwise, I'll remove my posts pronto. Thanks 😀

 

[imperial frog]

What's more important your bonus or a patients life?

How about maintaining a budget that will help save the lives of more than just one patient? There needs to come a time when someone realizes that saving one life at the expense of two others isn't the moral solution to the problem.

 

[JohnnyOU]

How about maintaining a budget that will help save the lives of more than just one patient? There needs to come a time when someone realizes that saving one life at the expense of two others isn't the moral solution to the problem.

Agreed.

 

[ProZackMI]

I have a bit of a off topic question, but still relevant. How far does HIPAA go in restricting comments you can make on a patient's situation? I've always thought that as long as you aren't mentioning the person's name or other key information (where they're being treated, some rare diagnosis that might reveal their identity, etc) then it's ok to say an anecdote about some situation with a patient. But maybe I am wrong?

You're correct. A generic synopsis is not a violation; however, a synopsis that gives the recipient of information a reasonable inference to the pt's identity, or overtly discloses the pt's identifying information, either partially, or wholly, is a blatant violation of HIPAA.

 

[ProZackMI]

But if it was a 16 year old child which her parents refuses transfusion which could save her life, I would definitely seek a court ruling... or beat up the parents.. maybe both.

The US Supreme Court initiated a First Amendment Freedom of Religion balancing test in situations like this, whereby the Court balances the First Amendment religious rights of the parents with the State's interests in protecting children from potential harm due to lack of appropriate medical tx. However, in order to abridge the parents' First Amendment rights based on freedom of religion, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to raise their children as they see fit without governmental interference, the Court must look at all the facts and ascertain whether the refusal to treat the child would likely result in the child's death or permanent disability. If the answer is yes, then the Court and Department of Children's Services may intervene and compel the hospital or physician to administer the appropriate treatment. Failure to comply with the Court edict, or parental interference, could result in termination of parental rights, incarceration for child endangerment/neglect, or other sanctions.

 

[cognito]

I don't think this is the popular opinion, but I'm sure a few of you out there agree: I respect the opinion o the patient as well as their religious beliefs, but that still doesn't mean that a private institution has to pay for a costlier treatment. As far as I understand, it is the responsibility of the hospital to stabilize the patient, and if they can' help them any further (ethically or financiay) then there are community, state funded institutions that should take up that patient and cost.

 

[no-see-um]

If artificial blood transfusions were feasible, would they be against that as well?

 

[elmoz]

Very good point. This is what I'm trained to do: I am not allowed to know more info of a patient than what is enough to deliver care. We are not allowed to discuss a patient's condition unless needed to deliver care. Patient's personal information is also off limit. However, we banter stories like these all the times, so I think this is within limit, besides those stories which I shared can be a hypothetical situation or reworded as such. If someone else find otherwise, I'll remove my posts pronto. Thanks 😀

At my work too, the nurses and people involved with patient care will share stories all the time, but they don't go around sharing the same info with the data entry person, receptionist, etc. I was in a position where I worked closely with the nurses and heard a lot of the information. Anyway, when my interview came I was asked a question about patient confidentiality. I responded correctly, but then went on to give examples of two patients whose situations made HIPAA extremely important (for one, her family didn't know her diagnosis, and the other was a foster child whose natural parents weren't supposed to find out information about the child). Afterward I was SO scared that I had violated HIPAA by sharing these generalized stories on a inteview question about HIPAA!! I got in, so I guess it was okay, but since then I've wondered how strict the rules were.

 

[museabuse]

How about maintaining a budget that will help save the lives of more than just one patient? There needs to come a time when someone realizes that saving one life at the expense of two others isn't the moral solution to the problem.

I never said anytyhing about saving someones life over the other. Don't know how you came to conclude that.

It sounds like the hospital stabalized her and moved her to a hospice to die. Seems like the right approach when that is her wishes.

If she got a blood transfusion and wanted to live, there could have been more complications and she might have stayed in the hospital a lot longer causeing the hospital a lot more money. Plus not to mention all the other times she would need medical care for extending her life a little while longer.

Now she will die probably with occasional shots of cheap morphine.

Don't think she caused other people to die?

 

[Sosumi]

"As for your Jehovah's witness, are there any other way to get funds for this patient? If not, I'd say let her pray hard enough and let Jehovah decide if she dies since she doesn't have enough faith in blood transfusion products. It's like brand versus generic drugs. If you want the brand, then you better be willing to shell out the money for it."


Wow, sorry to actually insult a forum member, but you're unbeliveable. That analogy is absolutely terrible, it is completely irrelevant to the issue of blood transfusions - it has nothing to do with money (brand name vs generic, what the hell?) whatsoever, dear god.

It amazes me how someone who's actually in a professional school dedicated to health care just actually said 'let her pray hard enough and let god decide if she dies or not', wow. I think you should actually be banned for that very offensive comment.

Do some research on why they refuse transfusions, no it's not because of a lack of faith in them. It's a religious reason. No, i'm not a Jehovah's Witness but I still find your ignorance offensive. I hope you'll never have to care for me.

Yes that comment does sound a bit callous, but a hospital has to maintain its budget so that it can pay for the operating expenses and treat other needy patients. It can respect the patient's religious belief that they should not receive transfusions and instead use synthetic blood products, but why should the hospital be obligated to pay for the entire cost, breaking the bank and thus using up their emergency funds that could be used for someone else just as deserving who can't afford treatment just because their beliefs mean that you require much costlier treatments?

That's what I was getting about brand versus generic analogy. There are cheaper alternatives that have nothing to do with medical necessity. Why shouldn't the patient be obligated to find means to help pay for such treatments?

You can feel all noble and justified to treat the patient as best as possible according to their wishes, but believe it or not, money is also very important in healthcare treatment.

 

[imperial frog]

If artificial blood transfusions were feasible, would they be against that as well?

They don't have a problem with blood substitutes. It's not the concept of adding volume that they are against, only the intake of someone (or something) else's actual blood.

 

[imperial frog]

I never said anytyhing about saving someones life over the other. Don't know how you came to conclude that.

I was only presenting an alternative reason for why Zpak might have been concerned about his budget instead of the bonus you suggested.

It sounds like the hospital stabalized her and moved her to a hospice to die. Seems like the right approach when that is her wishes.

Hmmm...totally missed that in Zpak's original post...oh yeah...because he didn't say that. I took it as an ongoing situation that hasn't been resolved yet as to what is going to happen to the patient. She might end up in hospice or she might divert a few hundred thousand dollars away from others. Taking heroic measures (or expensive measures as in this case) plays nice, but I don't see it as something that can be sustained...the money has to come from somewhere.

 

[golf299]

A hospital is a place for people to get better, not to lay around. If a patient comes in and requires a given course of treatment but refuses it, you do as much as you can do then you send them on their way. Otherwise, the "care" you're providing them becomes a drain on the hospital and all the other patients who actually want to be helped. If a patient comes in with a compound fracture, you don't hold their hand and cry with them; you treat them. I'm not interested in paying for someone else's stupidity. Maybe you are.

 

[Requiem]

"A hospital is a place for people to get better, not to lay around. If a patient comes in and requires a given course of treatment but refuses it, you do as much as you can do then you send them on their way. Otherwise, the "care" you're providing them becomes a drain on the hospital and all the other patients who actually want to be helped. If a patient comes in with a compound fracture, you don't hold their hand and cry with them; you treat them. I'm not interested in paying for someone else's stupidity. Maybe you are."

Hahahhahahahaha, wow. I am still absolutely amazed you're in healthcare. I'm glad you view other people's beliefs as 'stupid', very professional and empathetic. I'm still trying to decide whether you're 12, or possibly 13; can't really confirm yet.

 

[aubieRx]

"

Hahahhahahahaha, wow. I am still absolutely amazed you're in healthcare. I'm glad you view other people's beliefs as 'stupid', very professional and empathetic. I'm still trying to decide whether you're 12, or possibly 13; can't really confirm yet.

I can undertand why someone might not want an organ transplant like heart/kidney (id have to think long and hard before i allowed someone elses slimy organs into my body cavitiy), but a blood transfusion???

blood gets broken down after some time so its not like its permanent.

it does ring of stupidity to refuse one and then expect a hospital to work extra hard to make up for it.

It would be like coming in with a knife wound and then saying you are religiously against stitches in the flesh but you want medical help.

 

[jamboo54]

It seems like there are two opinions running around here. One is a pragmatic view and another is an emotional view. I'm a little bit more on the pragmatic side. We have to remember that many private hospitals are also businesses. They must think in both an economic aspect and a healthcare aspect. So if costs start to rise, as is the case in this discussion, then the business makes less profit and if the business stops making profit then it closes or scales down. Yes, I do believe this lady has every right to her beliefs. I believe she has every right to be treated the way she wants. But that is just not reality sometimes. I don't think her beliefs should be allowed to interfere with the stability of the hospital which will effect care for everyone else. I know she is just one patient and the hospital would eventually recover from the loss but imagine if the hospital received multiple patients like this. Freedom of speech, religion, etc. is great but one's freedom of relgion should not effect everyone else's right to healthcare.

I know some of you guys will think that im immature and that i shouldn't be getting into healthcare because of this or something of the sort. But thats ok.

 

[aubieRx]

Yes, I do believe this lady has every right to her beliefs. I believe she has every right to be treated the way she wants. But that is just not reality sometimes. I don't think her beliefs should be allowed to interfere with the stability of the hospital which will effect care for everyone else. I know she is just one patient and the hospital would eventually recover from the loss but imagine if the hospital received multiple patients like this. Freedom of speech, religion, etc. is great but one's freedom of relgion should not effect everyone else's right to healthcare.

I agree. A patient with set X of religious beliefs should not come to a hospital of modern medicine and expect that the life-savng routine treatment for their symptoms Y be drastically changed to fit in with set of beliefs X. A hospital is not a religious temple and cannot possibly be expected to be sensitive to every religion in the world.

If this were the case, the hospital would quickly become inefficient and efficiency does count for something.

You don't go into a wine store and then become offended when someone tries to sell you a botle of wine. nor should you walk into a business of modern medicine and become offended when someone tries to sell you modern medicine

I know some of you guys will think that im immature and that i shouldn't be getting into healthcare because of this or something of the sort. But thats ok.

try not to care what other people think. They have their opinions too and they are not superior just different. why let them cheat you out of your opinion?

 

[ZpackSux]

Respecting one's religious belief is a kosher thing to do.

However, how will you react if the patient is one of your family members.

Ask yourself. Would you rather provide a cost effective treatment that you know will work or would you opt for an expensive ineffective treatment which will eventually lead your mom to pass away.

Respecting one's religious belief is overrated in this situation.

 

[ZpackSux]

A hospital is a place for people to get better, not to lay around. If a patient comes in and requires a given course of treatment but refuses it, you do as much as you can do then you send them on their way. Otherwise, the "care" you're providing them becomes a drain on the hospital and all the other patients who actually want to be helped. If a patient comes in with a compound fracture, you don't hold their hand and cry with them; you treat them. I'm not interested in paying for someone else's stupidity. Maybe you are.

I couldn't have said it any better.

 

[ZpackSux]

"A hospital is a place for people to get better, not to lay around. If a patient comes in and requires a given course of treatment but refuses it, you do as much as you can do then you send them on their way. Otherwise, the "care" you're providing them becomes a drain on the hospital and all the other patients who actually want to be helped. If a patient comes in with a compound fracture, you don't hold their hand and cry with them; you treat them. I'm not interested in paying for someone else's stupidity. Maybe you are."

Hahahhahahahaha, wow. I am still absolutely amazed you're in healthcare. I'm glad you view other people's beliefs as 'stupid', very professional and empathetic. I'm still trying to decide whether you're 12, or possibly 13; can't really confirm yet.

?

Respecting one's religious belief is a good thing, I guess. But not when it involves harming a self or others.

 

[dqkt]

Yep, ask if she can somehow pay for her costs, or else send the lady on her way to God. I wouldn't want my family to be at that hospital without any resources because of one patient who refuses treatment.

?

Respecting one's religious belief is a good thing, I guess. But not when it involves harming a self or others.

 

[aubieRx]

what if someone's archaic religious belief leads them to desire a blood letting treatment for their healing? should a doctor be "senstive" and give it to em?

 

[golf299]

Hahahhahahahaha, wow. I am still absolutely amazed you're in healthcare. I'm glad you view other people's beliefs as 'stupid', very professional and empathetic. I'm still trying to decide whether you're 12, or possibly 13; can't really confirm yet.

Nice try, Requiem, but don't twist my words to reinforce your viewpoint. No where did I say that I viewed other people's beliefs as stupid. However, I do view it as stupidity for an individual to willingly go to a hospital and then refuse the correct, life saving course of treatment. It's nonsensical and, unfortunately, a lot of people lack common sense. You don't understand that?

Attacking me and others personally... now that's professional.

 

[dqkt]

We should have an sdn fightclub...

Nice try, Requiem, but don't twist my words to reinforce your viewpoint. No where did I say that I viewed other people's beliefs as stupid. However, I do view it as stupidity for an individual to willingly go to a hospital and then refuse the correct, life saving course of treatment. It's nonsensical and, unfortunately, a lot of people lack common sense. You don't understand that?

Attacking me and others personally... now that's professional.

 

[aubieRx]

" I am still absolutely amazed you're in healthcare. .

also requiem, who is more ill suited for health care? a person who is irritated at a religious belief that prevents him from saving a patient's life or a person who eagerly (almost too eagerly) accepts and condones such a religious belief and would rather see a patient dead than challenge it in the name of some sort of "superior sensitivity" that some of us more uncouth members lack.

Its a judgment call to be sure.

but if someone shows up at a hospital it is usually a sign they want their life to be saved. I realize that people have the right to refuse life saving treatments. However in this situation the patient seems to want a life saving treatment done "her" way which is expensive and a major drain on everyone involved. thereby making it somewhat of a "logically stupid" situation

and please dont think that i am not religious. I am christian although I come from a long line of southern baptists who feel that if the good lord puts us in a hospital in a position to get a life saving treatment its a sign from heaven the good lord wants us to live 😀

 

[museabuse]

I agree. A patient with set X of religious beliefs should not come to a hospital of modern medicine and expect that the life-savng routine treatment for their symptoms Y be drastically changed to fit in with set of beliefs X. A hospital is not a religious temple and cannot possibly be expected to be sensitive to every religion in the world.
If this were the case, the hospital would quickly become inefficient and efficiency does count for something.
You don't go into a wine store and then become offended when someone tries to sell you a botle of wine. nor should you walk into a business of modern medicine and become offended when someone tries to sell you modern medicine
try not to care what other people think. They have their opinions too and they are not superior just different. why let them cheat you out of your opinion?

Wow I can't believe these words came out of your mouth. I totally had you pinned as a bible thumping christian conservative.

Question though... how do you feel about plan B? Should pharmacists be allowed to morally object to that? If you believe that then what you are saying is completely hipocritical... community pharmacy and public health should keep religion seperate and if you are going into it then you have to be aware that you may have to leave your beliefs at the door and not be judgemental to others... leave that between God and the patient.

 

[aubieRx]

Wow I can't believe these words came out of your mouth. I totally had you pinned as a bible thumping christian conservative.

wow when have i ever thumped a bible in here? not ever. nor will you find me thumping bibles outside of this forum because if people don't believe in god i really do not care.

I've totally pinned you as a unfounded conclusion drawing guy who can't debate andtherefore has to reduce himself to cheap shots to compensate.

 

[Caverject]

Wow I can't believe these words came out of your mouth. I totally had you pinned as a bible thumping christian conservative.

Question though... how do you feel about plan B? Should pharmacists be allowed to morally object to that? If you believe that then what you are saying is completely hipocritical... community pharmacy and public health should keep religion seperate and if you are going into it then you have to be aware that you may have to leave your beliefs at the door and not be judgemental to others... leave that between God and the patient.

dude...that question deserves a whole new thread in itself. It shouldn't be addressed in this thread.

 

[museabuse]

dude...that question deserves a whole new thread in itself. It shouldn't be addressed in this thread.

Dude... yes I know... I guess i should have pm'd. I was just curious of why according to aubie religion shouldn't play a role when a patient comes into the hospital but when it comes to dispenising it should play a role for the pharmaicist?

 

[aubieRx]

Dude... yes I know... I guess i should have pm'd. I was just curious of why according to aubie religion shouldn't play a role when a patient comes into the hospital but when it comes to dispenising it should play a role for the pharmaicist?

what I feel (or don't feel) about a totally different scenario does not determine the validity of what I have to say in this thread about this particular scenario

 

[Caverject]

There is no book of law that says you must do *this* at every situation. Aubie is just like everyone else in pharmacy school; someone that can think for herself. Hopefully, everyone has that ability and can reason their own actions through judgement.

 

[minoos]

Arguing on the internet is like the special olympics...

...even if you win, you're still a ******.

 

[Caverject]

Arguing on the internet is like the special olympics...

...even if you win, you're still a ******.

Logging on to every computer at Midwestern University is just like the special olymipics....even if you win, you're still a ******.